BASIC TESTING AND STRENGTH

DESIGN OF CORRUGATED BOARD

AND CONTAINERS

TOMAS NORDSTRAND

Structural
Doctoral Thesis
Mechanics
Detta är en tom sida!
 Structural Mechanics

ISRN LUTVDG/TVSM--03/1015--SE (1-129)

ISBN 91-628-5563-8 ISSN 0281-6679

BASIC TESTING AND STRENGTH

DESIGN OF CORRUGATED BOARD
AND CONTAINERS

Doctoral Thesis by
TOMAS NORDSTRAND

Copyright © Tomas Nordstrand, 2003.

Printed by KFS i Lund AB, Lund, Sweden, February 2003.

For information, address:

Division of Structural Mechanics, LTH, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden.
Homepage: http://www.byggmek.lth.se
Detta är en tom sida!
ABSTRACT

Packaging serves a lot of purposes, and would be hard to do without. Packaging

protects the goods during transport, saves costs, informs about the product, and
extends its durability. A transport package is required to be strong and lightweight in
order to be cost effective. Furthermore, it should be recycled because of
environmental and economical concerns. Corrugated board has all of these features.

This thesis is compiled of seven papers that theoretically and experimentally treat the
structural properties and behaviour of corrugated board and containers during
buckling and collapse. The aim was to create a practical tool for strength analysis of
boxes that can be used by corrugated board box designers. This tool is based on finite
element analysis.

The first studies concerned testing and analysis of corrugated board in three-point-
bending and evaluation of the bending stiffness and the transverse shear stiffness. The
transverse shear stiffness was also measured using a block shear test. It was shown
that evaluated bending stiffness agrees with theoretically predicted values. However,
evaluation of transverse shear stiffness showed significantly lower values than the
predicted values. The predicted values were based on material testing of constituent
liners and fluting prior to corrugation. Earlier studies have shown that the fluting
sustains considerable damage at its troughs and crests in the corrugation process and
this is probably a major contributing factor to the discrepancy. Furthermore, the block
shear method seems to constrain the deformation of the board and consistently
produces higher values of the transverse shear stiffness than the three-point-bending
test. It is recommended to use the latter method.

Further experimental studies involved the construction of rigs for testing corrugated
board panels under compression and cylinders under combined stresses. The panel
test rig, furnishing simply supported boundary conditions on all edges, was used to
study the buckling behaviour of corrugated board. Post-buckling analysis of an
orthotropic plate with initial imperfection predicted failure loads that exceed the
experimental values by only 6-7 % using the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. It was
confirmed, by testing the cylinders that failure of biaxially loaded corrugated board is
not significantly affected by local buckling and that the Tsai-Wu failure criterion is
appropriate to use.

A method for prediction of the top-to-bottom compression strength of corrugated

board containers using finite element analysis was developed and verified by a large
number of box compression tests. Up to triple-wall corrugated board is
accommodated in the finite element model. The described FE-method for predicting
the top-to-bottom compressive strength of corrugated containers has been used as the
basic component in the subsequent development of a user-friendly computer-based
tool for strength design of containers.

Keywords: analysis, bending, box, buckling, collapse, compression, corrugation,

corrugated board, crease, design, experiment, failure criterion, fluting, finite element
method, liner, local buckling, packaging, panel, paper, stiffness, strength, test method,
transverse shear
Detta är en tom sida!
CONTENTS PAGE

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1

General remarks 1
Background and earlier work 3
Aim of present work 4
General assumptions and limitations in present work 5
Summary of contents and major conclusions 5
Concluding remarks and future research 6
Presented papers 7
Acknowledgements 8
References 9

PART II: APPENDED PAPERS

PAPER 1: T. Nordstrand, H. G. Allen and L. A. Carlsson, "Transverse Shear Stiffness

of Structural Core Sandwich", Composite Structures, No. 27, pp. 317-329,
1994.

PAPER 2: T. Nordstrand and L.A. Carlsson, "Evaluation of Transverse Shear Stiffness

of Structural Core Sandwich Plates", Composite Structures, Vol. 37, pp.
145-153, 1997.

PAPER 3: T. Nordstrand, "On Buckling Loads for Edge-Loaded Orthotropic Plates

including Transverse Shear", SCA Research, Box 716, 851 21 Sundsvall,
Sweden. To be submitted to Composite Structures.

PAPER 4: T. Nordstrand, "Parametrical Study of the Post-buckling Strength of

Structural Core Sandwich Panels", Composite Structures, No. 30, pp. 441-
451, 1995.

PAPER 5: T. Nordstrand, "Analysis and Testing of Corrugated Board Panels into the
Post-buckling Regime", SCA Research, Box 716, 851 21 Sundsvall,
Sweden. To be submitted to Composite Structures.

PAPER 6: P. Patel, T. Nordstrand and L. A. Carlsson, "Local buckling and collapse of

corrugated board under biaxial stress", Composite Structures, Vol. 39, No.
1-2, pp. 93-110, 1997.

PAPER 7: T. Nordstrand, M. Blackenfeldt and M. Renman, "A Strength Prediction

Method for Corrugated Board Containers", Report TVSM-3065, Div. of
Structural Mechanics, Lund University, Sweden, 2003.
 Part I

Introduction and Summary

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

General remarks

In 2001 the European transport packaging market had an estimated value of

approximately $20 billion. Corrugated board represented 62 per cent of this market value
[1]. A transport package is required to be strong and lightweight in order to be cost
effective. Furthermore, it should be recycled because of environmental and economical
concerns. Corrugated board has all of these features. In its most common form, viz.
single-wall board, two face sheets, called liners, are bonded to a wave shaped web called
fluting or medium, see Figure 1. The resulting pipes make the board extremely stiff in
bending and stable against buckling in relation to its weight [1]. Consequently, the
strength of the wood fibres in the board is also utilised in an efficient way. The fluting
pipes are oriented in the cross-direction (y, CD) of board production, see Figure 1. The
orientation of the board in-line with production is called machine-direction (x, MD).
Orientation through the thickness of the board is denoted Z-direction (z, ZD). This
definition of principal directions is also used for the constituent paper sheets.
z, ZD
y, CD

X, MD

Figure 1. Single-wall corrugated board.

In area, about 80 per cent of corrugated board production is single-wall board. The rest
is produced for more demanding packaging solutions that require double or triple-wall
board, illustrated in Figure 2.

z, ZD
y, CD

X, MD

Figure 2. Double and triple-wall corrugated board.

The profile of a corrugated web in Figure 3 is characterised by a letter, A, B, C, E or F,

specified in Table 1 [1]. Also listed in Table 1 are the take-up factors which quantify the
length of the fluting per unit length of the board. For example, one metre of corrugated
board with B-flute requires a 1.32 m long piece of paper prior to corrugation.

1
 hc z, ZD
y, CD

X, MD

λ λ

Figure 3. The geometry of a corrugated web.

As seen in Table 1 the tallest core profile is A-flute, which is used in board for heavy
duty boxes. B and C-flute are used for the most common board grades. The E and F-
flutes are small and consequently used in board for smaller boxes, e.g. perfume
packages, where appearance and printability are important [1].

Table 1. Flute profiles.

Profile A B C E F
Wavelength, λ (mm) 8.3-10 6.1-6.9 7.1-8.3 3.2-3.6 2.3-2.5
Flute height, hc (mm) 4.67 2.46 3.61 1.15 0.76
Take-up factor, α 1.54 1.32 1.43 1.27 1.25

A corrugator is a set of machines in line, designed to bring together liner and medium to
form single, double or triple-wall board. This operation is achieved in a continuous
process, see Figure 4.

The reels of liner and medium are fed into the corrugator. The medium is conditioned
with heat and steam and fed between large corrugating rolls forming fluting. In the
Single Facer, starch adhesive is applied to the tips of the flutes on one side and the inner
liner is glued to the fluting. The fluting with one liner attached to it is called single-face
web and travels along the machine towards the Double Backer where the single-face
web is bonded to the outer liner and forms corrugated board. The corrugated board is
then cut and stacked.

Double Backer

Corrugated board
Single Facer
Machine direction MD

Liner Fluting Liner

Medium

Figure 4. Manufacture of corrugated board.

2
The first corrugators were built in the US at the start of the last century. However, up
until 1920, the majority of products shipped via railroads, for example, were packed in
wooden crates. The corrugated box was relatively new and few had any experience in
transporting them. In order to avoid liability for damage while shipping items in
corrugated boxes, railroads in the US established a standard known as Rule 41. Rule 41
was an important step in opening up the market for corrugated board packaging. Later
on, during World War II, corrugated board packaging was called upon to deliver rations
and other war material to all corners of the earth. This contributed to the establishment
of corrugated board globally. After the war the market grew rapidly, and the range of
sizes and capabilities of corrugated boxes grew to fit the myriad of new products
developed. Recently, the combination of a plastic bag inside a corrugated board box
(bag-in-box) has resulted in many new opportunities, including the latest trend
packaging of wine.

Corrugated board is permeable to moisture and absorbs water. This will reduce its
strength and stiffness. However, it can be made both water and grease proof.

Many package styles and design options are possible, but often an international standard
of box styles [2], the FEFCO-code, is used in specifying a design. One of the most
common box styles is the regular slotted container (RSC) denoted FEFCO 0201, see
Figure 5. The box size is specified by LxWxH, i.e. length of the longest side panel,
width of the shortest side and height. The flap size is half of the width. In the logistics
chain in Sweden a transport package is usually adjusted to the EUR-pallet. Thus the
length and width of an RSC are usually uniform divisions of the pallet size (1200x800
mm), e.g. 300x200 mm or 600x400 mm.
Crease

Flap

W/2

H
L W L W H Side panel
W/2
L
W

Figure 5. A regular slotted container, code FEFCO 0201.

RSC:s are produced with an in-line Slotter-Folder-Gluer, which in one operation

creases, cuts, folds and glues the blank into its final shape. The RSC is then palletised
and ready to be shipped flat to the customer.

Background and earlier work

Several experimental studies have been conducted on the compression strength of

corrugated board containers [3,4]. The most common failure mode for a corrugated box
loaded in top-to-bottom compression is post-buckling deflection of its side panels,

3
followed by biaxial compressive failure of the board in the highly stressed corner regions
of the box. Local instabilities of the liners and fluting may also interact with the failure
progression [5-8]. A detailed finite element analysis of a corrugated board panel has
shown that local buckling of one of the liners may occur before actual material failure [9].
This can also be observed visually just prior to compression failure of panels and boxes
[10]. However, for shallow boxes and boxes with high board bending stiffness in
comparison to the box perimeter, failure is often caused by crushing of the creased board
at the loaded edges instead of collapse during buckling [11].

When considering the compression of panels in a box it is recognised that the flaps,
attached to the panels through the creases at top and bottom edges, introduce an
eccentricity in the loading [12, 13]. Furthermore, the top and bottom edges normally have
a much lower stiffness than the interior of the panel due to the creases. It has been
concluded that the low stiffness prevents a redistribution of the stresses to the corners of
the box and consequently reduces the box compression strength.

Several previous investigations have involved finite element analysis of corrugated board.
Peterson [14] developed a finite element model to study the stress fields developed in a
corrugated board beam under three point loading. Pommier and Poustius studied bending
stiffnesses of corrugated board using a linear elastic finite element code [15]. Pommier
and Poustius also developed a linear elastic finite element model for prediction of
compression strength of boxes [16]. Likewise a linear elastic finite element model of a
corrugated board panel for prediction of compression strength was developed by Rahman
[17].

Patel developed a linear elastic finite element model in a study of biaxial failure of
corrugated board [18]. The model was used to predict buckling patterns of a circular tube
subjected to different loading conditions. In an investigation by Nyman, local buckling of
corrugated board facings was studied numerically through finite element calculations
[19].

Little published work is available on the use of non-linear constitutive models for
prediction of strength of corrugated board structures. However, a non-linear model of
corrugated board was developed by Gilchrist, Suhling and Urbanik [20]. In their model,
both material and geometrical non-linearities were included, in-plane and transverse
loadings of corrugated board were examined. Bronkhorst and Riedemann [21] and
Nordstrand and Hagglund [22] have developed non-linear finite element models for
corrugated board configurations. These investigations generated predictions for
compressive creep of a box and time-dependent sagging of a corrugated board tray.

Aim of present work

This project was initiated with the objective of developing a design method based on
fundamental engineering mechanics to predict the strength of corrugated containers in
top-to–bottom compression.

4
General assumptions and limitations in present work

The major assumptions and limitations adopted in this work are as follows:

• Paper is regarded as a homogenous continuum with liner elastic orthotropic

properties.
• Influence of load duration, e.g. creep, moisture and inertia forces are not analysed.
• Deterministic characterisation of material properties, geometry and loading.
• Box strength analysed only for loading in top-to-bottom compression.

Summary of contents and major conclusions

In Paper 1, expressions for the transverse shear stiffnesses of corrugated board are
derived by considering a shear loaded element of the corrugated board and using the
theory of curved beams. It is shown how the transverse shear stiffness in the machine
direction is significantly changed by the transition from one core shape to another. An
experimental study of the transverse shear stiffness is given in Paper 2, where the
transverse shear stiffness is measured both by a block shear test and evaluated from a
three-point flexure test. The three-point flexure test is also simulated using finite element
analysis. Values of transverse shear stiffnesses obtained from the block shear test are
much larger than values evaluated from the three-point flexure test. The difference is
attributed to the highly constrained deformation of the facings in the block shear test. It
is also shown that experimental values are significantly lower than calculated values
obtained in Paper 1 and obtained from the finite element analysis. This is probably
caused by delamination damage to the corrugated medium inflicted during the
corrugation process.

In Paper 3, an expression is derived for the buckling load of a simply supported

orthotropic plate including first order transverse shear deformation. The influence of the
transverse shear on critical buckling is studied and compared with ordinary sandwich
theory. Its primary use, however, is to verify the buckling load obtained in a finite
element analysis of a simply supported single-wall corrugated board panel in Paper 4.
The influence on the panel strength of different parameters such as asymmetry,
slenderness of the corrugated board and eccentric loading is studied in Paper 4. It was
concluded that panel strength is very sensitive to boundary conditions and change in
core thickness of the board, i.e. the change in bending stiffness of the board.

In Paper 5, a panel compression test rig, furnishing simply supported boundary

conditions on all edges, was designed and used to study the buckling behaviour of
corrugated board panels. An analysis of an orthotropic plate with initial imperfection is
presented in Paper 5 to predict the collapse load using the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. A
significant difference was observed between analytically predicted and experimentally
measured displacements at large out-of-plane deformation. This is probably caused by
non-linear material behaviour of paper and local buckling of the panel facings, i.e. the

5
liners. However, the analytically predicted failure load exceeds experimental values by
only 6-7 %. This suggests that collapse of the corrugated board panel is triggered by
material failure of the inner facing. It is also concluded in Paper 6, where an
experimental study of biaxially loaded corrugated board is presented, that failure is not
significantly affected by local buckling of the corrugated board and that the Tsai-Wu
criterion is appropriate to use.

Finally, in Paper 7, a finite element method developed for stress and strength analysis of
corrugated containers using the failure criterion above is presented. The corrugated
board is represented by multi-ply eight node isoparametric shell elements, and the soft
creases at the loaded top and bottom edges are accommodated in the finite element
model by spring elements. Effective material properties of the homogenised corrugated
cores have been used, and each layer of the corrugated board is assumed to be
orthotropic linear elastic. It is shown that convergence is obtained with relatively few
elements, e.g. 144 elements are quite sufficient for a regular size box, i.e. 300x300x300
mm. Sensitivity of the collapse load to the imposed compliance at the loaded boundaries
is also studied. Different buckling modes of a box are simulated giving an in-depth
understanding of the relation between the strength of a box and constraints imposed on
the panels by the corners of the box. Extensive testing of boxes made from B- and C-
board shows that predicted failure loads using the proposed finite element model have an
average error margin of 5% compared to measured box strengths.

Concluding remarks and future research

Box performance requirements range from its appearance, to its mechanical strength and
ability to protect its contents. Mechanical properties can be divided into two categories,
those that pertain to rough handling and stacking. Both of these types are difficult to
duplicate accurately in the laboratory. As a consequence, the box compression test or
BCT of an empty container has been widely used as a means of evaluating container
performance. However, in order to distinguish between factors that govern box
performance it is necessary to test the quality of the corrugated board and its components,
maintain good control of conversion operations and environmental influences such as
humidity and load duration. In addition to standard testing methods, a future challenge for
research is to develop more sophisticated testing methods that are based on finite element
models. Once the roles of liner and medium behaviour in box performance are properly
understood, material properties can be evaluated by mill and plant personnel so that
attention is given to the properties that govern end-use performance. For example,
corrugated containers that are stacked on top of each other will slowly deform with time
until one of the boxes collapses or the stack falls over. Consequently, the relevance of
studying creep behaviour of paper and board is that it can reduce stacking factors in
design of corrugated board packages. This is a future goal in the development of a user-
friendly computer-based tool for strength design of containers. Finally, this work shows
how far it is possible to predict box performance using an orthotropic linear elastic
material model, multi-ply eight node iso-parametric finite element and the Tsai-Wu
failure criterion.

6
Presented papers

Paper 1: T. Nordstrand, H. G. Allen and L. A. Carlsson, "Transverse Shear Stiffness

of Structural Core Sandwich", Composite Structures, No. 27, pp. 317-329,
1994.

Paper 2: T. Nordstrand and L. A. Carlsson, "Evaluation of Transverse Shear Stiffness

of Structural Core Sandwich Plates", Composite Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 145-
153, 1997.

Paper 3: T. Nordstrand, "On Buckling Loads for Edge-Loaded Orthotropic Plates

including Transverse Shear". To be submitted to Composite Structures.

Paper 4: T. Nordstrand, "Parametrical Study of the Post-buckling Strength of

Structural Core Sandwich Panels", Composite Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 441-
451, 1995.

Paper 5: T. Nordstrand, "Analysis and Testing of Corrugated Board Panels into the
Post-buckling Regime". To be submitted to Composite Structures.

Paper 6: P. Patel, T. Nordstrand and L. A. Carlsson, "Local buckling and collapse of

corrugated board under biaxial stress", Composite Structures, Vol. 39, No. 1-
2, pp. 93-110, 1997.

Paper 7: T. Nordstrand, M. Blackenfeldt and M. Renman, "A Strength Prediction

Method for Corrugated Board Containers", Report TVSM-3065, Div. of
Structural Mechanics, Lund University, Sweden, 2003.

7
Acknowledgements

Firstly, I am indebted to the vision of the late Alf de Ruvo for initiating a far-reaching
project at SCA called "Box Mechanics" in 1989. This project involved several staff
researchers at SCA, and I would like to acknowledge the contributions from Dr. M.
Blackenfeldt, Tekn.lic. M. Renman, Dr. P. Patel, Tekn. lic. Rickard Hägglund and M.
Sc. Andreas Allansson.

Secondly, the drive and support given by Dr. Leif Carlsson, Florida Atlantic University,
has been invaluable for completing this task. I would also like to thank Dr. Per Johan
Gustafsson, Lund University, for his guidance, comments and suggestions while
completing this thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for all their support.

Sundsvall in December 2002,

Tomas Nordstrand

8
References

1. R. Steadman, "Corrugated Board", Ch. 11, in Handbook of Physical Testing of Paper,

(R.E. Mark et al. eds.), pp. 563-660, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2002.

2. FEFCO, Avenue Louise 250, B – 1050 Brussels, Belgium, www.fefco.org.

3. R. C. McKee and J. W. Gander, "Top-Load Compression", TAPPI, Vol. 40, No. 1,

pp. 57-64, 1957.

4. R. C. McKee, J. W. Cander, and J. R. Wachuta, "Compression Strength Formula for

Corrugated Boxes", Paperboard Packaging, 48, pp. 149-159, 1963.

5. M. W. Johnson and T. J. Urbanik, "Analysis of the Localized Buckling in Composite

Plate Structures with Application to Determining the Strength of Corrugated
Fiberboard", J. Comp. Tech. & Res., 11 (4), pp.121-127, 1989.

6. B. S. Westerlind and L. A. Carlsson, "Compressive Response of Corrugated Board",

TAPPI, 75 (7), pp.145-154, 1992.

7. P. Patel, T. Nordstrand and L.A. Carlsson, "Instability and Failure of Corrugated

Core Sandwich Cylinders Under Combined Stresses", in Multiaxial Fatigue and
Deformation Testing Techniques, ASTM STP 1280(S. Kalluri and P.J. Bonacuse,
Eds.), pp. 264-289, 1997.

8. P. Patel, T. Nordstrand and L. A. Carlsson, "A Study on the Influence of Local

Buckling on the Strength of Structural Core Sandwich Structures", Proceedings of
EUROMECH 360, Ecole des Mines de Saint-Etienne, 1997.

9. A. Allansson and B. Svärd, "Stability and Collapse of Corrugated Board", Master

thesis, Report TVSM-5102, Division of Structural Mechanics, Lund University,
Sweden, 2001.

10. E. K. Hahn, A.de Ruvo and L. A. Carlsson, " Compressive Strength of Edge-loaded
Corrugated Panels", Exper. Mech., Vol. 32, pp. 252-258, 1992.

11. W. Vollmer, "Components of Compression Testing on Corrugated Board Packaging

", FEFCO. XIIIth Congress, 1974.

12. J. S. Buchanan, "The Effect of Crease Form on the Compressive Strength of

Corrugated Cases", Packaging, pp. 37-43, March, 1963.

13. M. Renman, "A mechanical characterization of creased zones of corrugated board",

Licentiate thesis, Report 94:05, Division of Engineering Logistics, Lund University,
Sweden, 1994.

9
14. W. S. Peterson, "Unified Container Performance and Failure Theory I : Theoretical
Development of Mathematical Model", TAPPI, Vol. 63(10), pp. 75-79, 1980.

15. J. C. Pommier and J. Poustis, "Bending Stiffness of Corrugated Board Prediction

Using the Finite Element Method, Mechanics of Wood and Paper Materials", ASME
AMD-Vol. 112, Edited by R.W. Perkins, pp. 67-70, 1990.

16. J. C. Pommier, J. Poustis,Bending, J. Fourcade and P. Morlier, "Determination of the

critical load of a Corrugated Box Subjected to Vertical Compression by Finite
Element Method", Proceedings of the 1991 International Paper Physics Conference,
pp. 437-447, Kona, HI, 1991.

17. A. Rahman, "Finite element buckling analysis of corrugated fiberboard panels",

Proceedings of the 1997 joint ASME/ASCE/SES summer meeting entitled mechanics
of cellulosic materials, pp. 87-92; June 29-July 02, 1997.

18. P. Patel , "Biaxial Failure of Corrugated Board", Licentiate thesis, Division of Eng.
Logistics, Lund University, Sweden 1996.

19. U. Nyman, P.J. Gustafsson, "Material and Structural Failure Criterion of Corrugated
Board Facings", Accepted for publication in Composite Structures.

20. A. C. Gilchrist, J. C. Suhling and T. J. Urbanik., "Nonlinear finite element modeling

of corrugated board", Mechanics of Cellulose Materials- ASME AMD-Vol 231/MD-
Vol 85, pp. 101-106, 1999.

21. C. A. Bronkhorst and J. R. Riedemann, "The Creep Deformation Behaviour of

Corrugated Containers in a Cyclic Moisture Environment", Proceedings of the
Symposium on Moisture Induced Creep Behaviour of Paper and Board, pp. 249-273,
Stockholm , Sweden, December 5-7, 1994.

22. T. Nordstrand and R. Hagglund, "Predicting Sagging of Corrugated Board Tray

Bottom Using Isochrones", Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on
Moisture and Creep Effects on Paper, Board and Containers, pp. 215-220, Rotorua,
New Zeeland, February 20-21, 1997.

10
 Part II

Appended Papers
Detta är en tom sida!
 Paper 1
_______

Transverse Shear Stiffness of Structural

Core Sandwich
by
T. Nordstrand, Carlsson, L.A. and Allen, H.G.
Composite Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 317-329, 1994.
Detta är en tom sida!
 Paper 2
_______

Evaluation of Transverse Shear Stiffness of

Structural Core Sandwich Plates
by
T. Nordstrand and Carlsson, L.A.
Composite Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 145-153, 1997.
Detta är en tom sida!
 Paper 3
_______

On Buckling Loads for Edge-Loaded

Orthotropic Plates including Transverse Shear
by
T. Nordstrand
To be submitted to Composite Structures.
Detta är en tom sida!
 On Buckling Loads for Edge-Loaded Orthotropic Plates
including Transverse Shear

Tomas Nordstrand
SCA Research, Box 716, 851 21 Sundsvall, Sweden

ABSTRACT

Corrugated board usually exhibits low transverse shear stiffness, especially across the
corrugations. In the present study the transverse shear is included in an analysis to
predict the critical buckling load of an edge-loaded orthotropic linear elastic sandwich
plate with all edges simply supported. In the analysis, effective (homogenised)
properties of the corrugated core are used. Classical elastic buckling theory of
orthotropic sandwich plates predicts that such plates have a finite buckling coefficient
when the aspect ratio, i.e. the ratio between the height and width of the plate, becomes
small. However, inclusion in the governing equilibrium equations of the additional
moments, produced by the membrane stresses in the plate at large transverse shear
deformations, gives a buckling coefficient which approaches infinity when the aspect
ratio goes to zero. This improvement was first included in the buckling theory of
helical springs by Harinx (1942) and later applied to orthotropic plates by Burt and
Chang (1972). Some inconsistencies in the latter analysis have been considered. The
critical buckling load calculated with corrected analysis is compared with a predicted
load obtained using finite element analysis of a corrugated board panel, and also with
the critical buckling load obtained from panel compression tests.

1
INTRODUCTION

Corrugated board usually exhibits low transverse shear stiffness, especially across
corrugations[1, 2]. This will reduce the critical buckling load according to classical
theory of orthotropic sandwich panels [3, 4]. In this small-deflection theory it is
customary to assume that the membrane forces are unchanged during plate deflection
and equal to their initial values. However, due to the large transverse shear strains, the
change in direction of the membrane forces over a small plate element can not be
disregarded. This gives additional moments that are introduced in the governing
moment equilibrium equations of the panel. Such additional moments were first
included in the buckling theory of helical springs by Harinx [5]. Later this was applied
to shear deformable plates by Bert and Chang [6] although their work contains some
inconsistencies that are corrected herein. Furthermore, in the corrected analysis the
expression for the buckling coefficient is shown to reduce to the classical formulation
of an orthotropic plate without shear deformation when the transverse shear stiffnesses
become large. It is also shown that the buckling coefficient goes to infinity when the
height-width ratio of the plate is decreased towards zero. In the following analysis the
corrugated board panel is regarded as a laminated shear deformable orthotropic linear
elastic plate[7]. Thus, effective (homogenised) properties of the corrugated core are
used [8, 9]. The papers in the facings are also regarded as orthotropic linear elastic
materials [10,11]. The analysis was used to confirm predicted critical buckling load
from a finite element analysis of a corrugated board panel modelled with eight-node
multi-layered isoparametric shell elements [12-14]. Predicted critical buckling load is
also compared to buckling loads obtained from compression tests of corrugated board
panels [15].

ANALYSIS

Figure 1 shows an element of a corrugated board panel of thickness h. Core height is

hc and wavelength of corrugations is λM. Facing thickness is tf and thickness of core
sheet is tc. The principal axes of elastic symmetry of the face sheets and the core are
aligned with the Cartesian coordinate system xyz. The 2-axes of the corrugated
medium is parallel with the y-axes.

z
tf
h hc t 3 y,CD
c
2
1
λM x,MD
b

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of corrugated board.

It is assumed that the facings and core sheet are thin compared to the total thickness of
the panel and that the transverse shear strains are uniform in the core layer.

2
Furthermore, the deflections and slopes are assumed to be small compared to the
thickness of the plate. Transverse shear deformation of the plate is accommodated by
assuming that cross-sections remains straight but not necessarily normal to the mid-
plane of the plate during bending [6].

The membrane forces N x , N y , N xy , transverse shear forces Qxz , Q yz , bending and

twisting moments M x , M y , M xy are acting on respective four sides of a plate element,
see Figure 2.

The transverse shear strains, see Fig. 3, are determined by [4]

γ xz = A55Q xz (1)
γ yz = A44 Q yz

where A44 and A55 are the transverse shear stiffnesses [1, 2].
x
dx

z
y dy

Mxdy
Mxydy
Mydx
Nxdy
Mxydx
h
Nxydy
Nxydx

Qxdy
Nydx Qydx

Figure 2. Forces and moments acting on a plate element hdydx.

The plate displacement w is then related to the applied moments as follows [4]
∂β x ∂β y
M x = − D11 − D12
∂x ∂y
∂β x ∂β y
M y = − D12 − D 22
∂x ∂y
(2)
1  ∂β ∂β 
M xy = − D66  x + y 
where 2  ∂y ∂x 
∂w ∂w
βx = − γ xz , β y = − γ yz (3)
∂x ∂y

and D11, D22, D12 and D66 are the bending and twisting stiffnesses defined according to
ref. [7-11].

3
Figure 3 shows a cross-sectional view of the deformed plate element in the x-z-plane.
Considering that the plate is loaded in compression, the normal forces Nx, Ny and the
shear force Nxy are much larger than the transverse shear forces Qyz and Qxz and have
to be accounted for in the lateral equilibrium of the differential plate element.
Subsequently, after algebraic manipulation the equation of equilibrium in the z-
direction is obtained as,

∂Q xz ∂Q yz ∂β ∂β y  ∂β ∂β y  (4)
+ + Nx x + Ny + 2N xy  x + =0
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y  ∂y ∂x 

dx

y . x

∂w
∂Q
∂x Q Q + xz
xz xz dx
∂ x
β γ N
x xz x ∂M
w x
M M + dx
x
x ∂ x
∂ γxz ∂ 2γxz
x + 2 x dx
∂x ∂x
2
∂β ∂β
x+ x dx
∂ w ∂x
2 2
∂w ∂x
∂ Nx + dx
z ∂x
N + dx ∂x 2
x ∂x

Figure 3. Cross-section of a differential plate element.

The transverse shear strains at the left and right cross-sections in Figure 3 reduce the
slope slightly more of the right cross-section than the left cross-sections. This will
rotate the normal forces so that their action will not be through the centre of the
differential plate element. Consequently, the normal forces will generate additional
moments. These moments are taken into account in the present theory. This is the
basic difference between the present theory and the classical sandwich theory [4]. The
derivation of moment equilibrium around an axis through the centre of the differential
element and parallel with the y-axes in Fig. 3 is then as follows.

 ∂M x   ∂M yx 
Mx + dx dy - M x dy + M yx dx -  M yx + dy dx
 ∂x   ∂y 
 ∂Q xz   ∂N x   ∂γ 
-  Q xz + dx dydx +  N x + dx dydx γ xz + xz dx  = 0 (5)
 ∂x   ∂x   ∂x 

If both sides in eq. (5) are divided by dxdy and letting dx → 0 and dy → 0 , eq. (5)
reduces to

∂M x ∂M xy
- - Q xz + N x γ xz = 0 (6a)
∂x ∂y

4
Similarly, moment equilibrium around an axis through the centre of the differential
element parallel with the x-axis yields

∂M y ∂M yx
- - Q yz + N y γ yz = 0 (6b)
∂y ∂x

Substitution of eqs. (1)-(3) in equilibrium eqs. (4) and (6) forms a system of three
simultaneous differential equations in terms of the out-of-plane displacement w and
the transverse shear strains γxz and γyz .

It is assumed that the plate is simply supported along its edges, i.e. the edges of the
panel are prevented from moving out-of-plane and are not rotationally restrained. The
edges are also free to move in-plane and transverse shear strains are prevented by edge
stiffeners. The edges of the panel, parallel to the x-axis, are compressed uniformly by
a load of intensity, py, per unit length, see Fig. 4.

z a

py b

x
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of a simply supported panel in edgewise compression.

Thus, boundary conditions at y=0 and y=b are

w=0 My = 0 Mxy = 0 γxz = 0
and boundary conditions at x = 0 and x = a are
w=0 Mx = 0 Mxy = 0 γyz = 0
According to Navier´s procedure [7], a solution of the three simultaneous differential
equations that satisfy the boundary conditions above can be obtained by assuming that
the out-of-plane displacement, w, and transverse shear strains γxz, γyz can be
represented by double trigonometric series. However, in the present analysis only one-
term solutions are used for w, γxz and γyz , respectively.

w = W sin(Ax ) sin(By) (7a)

γ xz = Γxz cos( Ax) sin( By ) (7b)

5
γ yz = Γyz sin( Ax) cos( By ) (7c)

where W , Γxz and Γyz are corresponding amplitudes. A and B are

mπ nπ
A= , B= (8)
a b

Integers m and n are number of buckles, i.e. m and n half sine waves, in the x and y
directions. In the subsequent analysis it is convenient to define a number of parameters
of the homogenised sandwich plate [4]:

2
 na  D11 D 66 D12 + 2D 66 A 55 k A k
λ=  ,ζ = ,ψ = , η= , s xz = , s yz = 44
 mb  D 22 D11D 22 D11D 22 py py

where

2
 a  p y,crit
k=  , Pcrit ,theor = a p y , crit (9)
 nπ  D11D 22

py,crit , is the critical load intensity (load/unit length) to cause panel buckling. The total
critical buckling load is Pcrit,theor.

Substitution of the trigonometric expressions eq. (7) in the differential equations (4),
(6a) and (6b) leads to the following system of equations shown in matrix form

 λ   W   0
 k -
A
1
k + s yz( ) - s xz
B     
     
     
 + λη - 
1 1  1  λ     
ζ  + ψ + k + s 
 - (η - ψ )  Γxz  = 0 (10)
A  λζ
yz
  B
    
     
 1 λ ψ     
 λζ + η - (η - ψ ) -  ζ + + s 
xz   Γ   0
 A B λ   yz   

Correct expressions of the elements in the stiffness matrix of eq. (10) are given instead
of those in the stiffness formulation [6]. Solution of eqs. (10) different than the trivial
one, W = Γxz = Γyz = 0 are possible when the determinant of the matrix vanishes. This
criterion leads to a second order equation of k

Pk 2 + Qk + R = 0 (11)

where

6
 ψ
P =ζ + + s xz (12a)
λ

) (λζ + η ) λ- (η - ψ )
2 2
(
Q = s yz + ψ - λζ - 2η P + (12b)

 ψ
R =  ζ + Θ + s yz
(λζ + η )2 − PΘ - s P λζ + 2η + 1 
 (12c)
yz 
 λ λ  λζ 

and

 1  2
Θ = 1 + ψ  λζ + 2η +  - η (12d)
 λζ 

The non-trivial solution of eq. (8) can thus be found when

Q Q2 R
k=− ± − (13)
2P 4P 2 P

where only positive values of k are valid since the buckling load must be compressive.
The critical buckling load, Pcrit,theor, is given by eq.(9), where n=1 and k is the smallest
positive value given by eq. (11). Using eq. (12), the two ratios in eq. (13) are:

 
 
 
 
Q s yz  ψ - λζ - 2η (λζ + η ) - (η - ψ ) 
2 2
= 1 + +  (14a)
2P 2  s yz  ψ 
 ζ + 
 λ 
 s xz s yz λ 1 +
 s xz  
  
  

 
 
  1  2 
 1 + ψ  λζ + 2η +  -η
R  1  (λζ + η )2  λζ  
= -s yz  λζ + 2η +  + +  (14b)
P  λζ   ψ   ψ  
 ζ +   ζ + 
 λ λ 
 s xz λ 1 +  s yz 1 + 
 s xz   s xz 
     
     

Attention is now turned to analysis of the limit case of infinite large transverse shear
stiffnesses in order to show that the buckling coefficient k, determined by eq. (13), for
that limit is reduced to the buckling coefficient for orthotropic plates without shear
deformation [7].

7
If the transverse shear stiffnesses A 44 and A 55 , corresponding to s yz and s xz ,
approach infinity then it is evident from eqs. (14) that

Q s yz
→ (15a)
2P 2

and

R  1 
→ −s yz  λζ + 2η +  (15b)
P  λζ 

Substitution of eqs. (15) into eq. (13) gives

   
 4 λζ + 2η +
1

s yz  λζ 
k = − 1 − 1 +   (16)
2  s yz 
 
 

The square root in eq. (16) can be expanded according to the binomial series

1 1
1+ χ = 1+ χ − χ 2 +..... (17)
2 4

where
 1 
4 λζ + 2η + 
λζ
χ=   (18)
s yz

If eq. (17) and eq. (18) is substituted into eq. (16), the expression on the right hand
side is reduced to the buckling coefficient for an orthotropic plate [4]

1
k = λζ + 2 η + (19)
λζ

when s yz goes to infinity.

8
 10
9
With Shear

Buckling coefficient, k
8 Without Shear
7 Sandwich theory

6
5
4
3
2
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Plate height/width, b/a

Figure 5. Buckling coefficient k, according to present theory, eq.(13)-(14), the

theory for orthotropic plate without shear [4] and the classical sandwich
theory [4].

In Figure 5 the buckling coefficient for a plate with and without transverse shear is
plotted versus the plate width/height ratio. The material data used is typical for a
common corrugated board grade and defined in Table 2. Notice that the buckling
coefficient of the plate including transverse shear has no limit when the plate
height/width becomes small as classical sandwich buckling theory predicts [3,4].

COMPARISON WITH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF A CORRUGATED

BOARD PANEL

In a finite element analysis of a simply supported corrugated board panel, with side
lengths a = b = 400 mm, following eigenvalue analysis was made to obtain the critical
buckling load [12]. A multi-ply eight node isoparametric shell element where first
order transverse shear deformation is accounted for is used in the analysis. A quarter
of the panel was modelled, due to symmetry, in a 6x6 element mesh. The side length
ratio between the corner element and mid element was 1:5. The finite element
eigenvalue analysis is

([K ] + χ [S]ref ){ψ } = {0} (20)

where [K] is the global stiffness matrix of the finite element model, S ref is the
"stress stiffness matrix", χ is the factor used to multiply the loads which generate the
stresses and {ψ } is the generalised displacement vector of the nodes [13]. The load

9
{P} is also scaled by χ and it alters the intensity of the membrane stresses but not the
distribution of the stresses such that

{P} = χ {P}ref ⇔ [S] = χ [S]ref (21)

As χ is increased, the overall stiffness of the plate, ([Κ] + [S]), is reduced until a critical
load {P}cr corresponding to the eigenvalue χcr is reached and the plate becomes
unstable, i.e. det([Κ] + [S]) goes to zero.

The corrugated board analysed has 0.23 mm thick liners and a corrugated medium with
wall thickness 0.25 mm and wavelength 7.26 mm. The height of the core layer is hc =
3.65 mm, see Fig. 1. Using the material data in Table 1, the buckling load of the
corrugated board panel was calculated to Pcr,fem = 849 N. This value is in excellent
agreement with the value obtained by the closed form solution Pcr,theor = 846 N, see eq.
(9) and eq. (13). Sandwich theory gives a critical buckling Pcr,sand = 815 N and an
orthotropic plate without shear Pcr,ortho = 898 N.

Table 1. Effective material properties of the layers in the panel.

Layer Ex (GPa) Ey (GPa) Ez (GPa)

1 8.25 2.9 2.9
2 0.005 0.231 3.0
3 8.18 3.12 3.12
Layer Gxy (GPa) Gxz (GPa) Gyz (GPa)
1 1.89 0.007 0.070
2 0.005 0.0035 0.035
3 1.95 0.007 0.070
Layer νxy νxz + νyz +
1 0.43 0.01 0.01
2 0.05 0.01 0.01
3 0.43 0.01 0.01

+ The Poisson's ratios are assumed small because of the plane stress condition in the board.

COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS

Panels size 400x400 mm were cut from corrugated board and tested under
compression in a rig that furnishes simply supported boundary conditions [15]. Panels
were oriented with the cross direction (CD) in the direction of loading, see Figure 6.

10
Figure 6. Rig and corrugated board panel tested under compression.

Material data for the board is given in Table 2. The critical buckling load as estimated
from the test results by means of a non-linear regression analysis method [15] was 814
N. This value is consistent with the analytically predicted critical buckling load of 870
N using the present buckling analysis, i.e. an analysis of a plate including transverse
shear deformation.

Table 2. Corrugated board data. Transverse shear stiffness is measured.

Basis weight, g/m2 556

Thickness, mm h 4.02
Corrugation wavelength, mm λM 7.26
Bending stiffness, Nm D11 14.6
D22 5.43
D12 2.71
D66 3.34
Transverse shear stiffness, kN/m A44 39.2
A55 5.6

In comparison, a plate without shear deformation is predicted to have a critical

buckling load of 924 N, which is exactly the same result as obtained from the classical
theory of orthotropic plates [7].

CONCLUSIONS

An explicit equation for the buckling load of a simply supported orthotropic linear
elastic plate in edgewise compression has been derived taking into account first order
transverse shear deformation. There is major difference between present theory and
classical sandwich theory in the additional moments that are introduced in the
governing moment equilibrium equations of the panel, due to change in directions of
the membrane forces over a small plate element that has large transverse shear strains.

11
When the transverse shear stiffness goes to infinity the critical buckling load,
predicted by the present theory, is shown to be reduced to the critical buckling load of
an orthotropic plate without transverse shear deformation. Furthermore, the buckling
coefficient does not have a limit in the present theory when the plate height/width
becomes small, as classical sandwich buckling theory predicts. The present theory is
approximate due to one-term approximations of the deflection w(x,y) and the
transverse shear strains γxz(x,y) and γyz(x,y). Verification by finite element analysis
suggests that the present explicit equation for the buckling load is accurate, the
deviation is typically less than 0.5%. However, the discrepancy is larger between
present theoretical buckling load and the experimental buckling load of corrugated
board panels. This may partly be due to the difficulties involved in evaluation of the
buckling load from the experimental results [15] partly due to the non-linear material
behaviour of paper.

REFERENCES

1. T. M. Nordstrand, H. G. Allen and L. A. Carlsson, "Transverse Shear Stiffness of

Structural Core Sandwich", Composite Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 317-329, 1994.
2. T. Nordstrand and L.A. Carlsson, “Evaluation of Transverse Shear Stiffness of
Structural Core Sandwich Plates”, Composite Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 145-153,
1997.
3. E. Reissner, “The Effect of Transverse Shear Deformation on Bending of Elastic
Plates”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 12, A69-A77, 1945.
4. F.J. Plantema, “Sandwich Construction”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
N.Y., 1966.
5. J. A. Harinx, “On Buckling and the Lateral Rigidity of Helical Compression
Springs”, Proceedings of the Konjlike Nederland Akademie Wettenschappen, Vol.
45, pp. 533-539, 650-654, Amsterdam, Holland,1942.
6. C.W. Bert and S. Chang, “Shear-Flexible Orthotropic Plates Loaded In-Plane”,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. EM6, pp. 1499-1509, December, 1972.
7. Jones, R. M., Mechanics of Composite Materials, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
New York, 1975.
8. L. A. Carlsson, T. Nordstrand and B. Westerlind, “On the Elastic Stiffnesses of
Corrugated Core Sandwich”, Journal of Sandwich Sturctures and Materials, Vol.
3, pp. 253-267, 2001.
9. C. Libove and R. E. Hubka, "Elastic Constants for Corrugated Core Sandwich
Plates", NACA, TN 2289, 1951.
10. G. A. Baum, D. C. Brennan and C. C. Habeger, "Orthotropic Elastic Constants of
Paper", Tappi, Vol. 64, pp. 97-101, 1981.
11. R. Paetow and L. Göttsching, “Poisson’s Ratio of Paper”, Das Papier, Vol. 6, pp.
229-237, 1990.

12
12. T. Nordstrand, “Parametrical Study of the Post-buckling Strength of Structural
Core Sandwich Panels”, Composite Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 441-451, 1995.
13. ANSYS User’s Manual, Swanson Analysis System Inc., Vol. 1-2, 1989.
14. S. Ahmad, B. M. Irons and O. C. Zienkiewicz, ”Analysis of Thick and Thin Shell
Structures by Curved Finite Elements”, International Journal of Numerical
Methods in Engineering, No. 2, pp 419-451, 1970.
15. T. Nordstrand, “Analysis and Testing of Corrugated Board Panels into the Post-
buckling Regime”, To be submitted to Composite Structures.

13
Detta är en tom sida!
 Paper 4
_______

Parametrical Study of the Post-buckling

Strength of Structural Core Sandwich Panels
by
T. Nordstrand
Composite Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 441-451, 1995.
Detta är en tom sida!
 Paper 5
_______

Analysis and Testing of Corrugated Board

Panels into the Post-buckling Regime
by
T. Nordstrand
To be submitted to Composite Structures.
Detta är en tom sida!
 Analysis and Testing of Corrugated Board Panels into
the Post-buckling Regime
Tomas Nordstrand
SCA Research, Box 716, 851 21 Sundsvall, Sweden

ABSTRACT

Testing of the load bearing capacity of corrugated board boxes is often associated
with uncertainties, e.g. the creases along the edges of the side panels introduce
eccentricities. An alternative to the testing of boxes is therefore attractive. One
suggestion is testing of panels. However, panels are sensitive to the boundary
conditions. A panel compression test (PCT-) rig, similar to a test frame for metal
plates designed by A. C. Walker, was therefore built to achieve accurately defined
load and boundary conditions. The PCT-rig furnishes simply supported boundary
conditions, i.e. the edges of the panel are prevented from moving out-of-plane
without any rotational restraint. The edges are also free to move in-plane. In order to
describe the buckling behaviour, a non-linear buckling analysis of orthotropic plates,
derived by Banks and Harvey, was modified to include initial imperfections. The
critical buckling load of the panels was evaluated by fitting the analytical expression
by non-linear regression to experimentally measured load-displacement curves. The
results show a difference in the order of 15-20 % between experimentally estimated
critical buckling load and the analytically predicted critical buckling load for
orthotropic plates. This is mainly attributed to transverse shear deformations. A
corresponding difference was observed between analytically predicted and
experimentally measured load-displacement curves at large out-of-plane deformation,
i.e. twice or three times the board thickness. This is probably caused by the non-linear
response of paper at high stresses and local buckling of the panel facings, i.e. the
liners. A predicted failure load of the corrugated board panel was determined when
stresses in the facings reached the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. The predicted failure
load and measured average experimental failure load were close, indicating that
collapse of the panel is triggered by material failure of one of the liners.
NOTATIONS

a, b Plate size in x and y directions

A, A0 Amplitudes of the total and initial plate deflection functions

Ai Relative amplitude of the shape function

Bending stiffness of the plate
Dij
Eij Modulus of elasticity of liner

Eij,c Modulus of elasticity of medium

Gij Shear modulus of liner

F Airy’s stress function
h Plate thickness
hc Core thickness
tf Liner thickness
tc Medium thickness
α Take-up factor
M x, M y, M xy Bending and twisting moments per unit distance in middle
surface of the plate
N x, N y, N xy Membrane forces per unit distance in middle surface of the
plate
P Load
Pcrit Critical buckling load
u, v, w Displacements in x, y and z directions
V Strain energy
x, y, z Cartesian co-ordinates
γ Unit shear strain
εx,εy Unit normal strains in x and y directions of the facings
ν ij Poisson’s ratio
σ x,σ y Unit normal stresses in x and y directions
τ xy Unit shear stress on plane perpendicular to the x-axis and
parallel to the
y-axis
INTRODUCTION

Corrugated board is one of our most common transport packaging materials. Large
retailers and distributors are under increasing pressure to cut the cost of corrugated
packaging. With the increasing scale of business it has become unacceptable to over
design boxes. Consequently, it is necessary to predict box strength in order to obtain
boxes at the lowest possible cost.

However, analysis of top-to-bottom compression loading of boxes is often associated

with uncertainties, e.g. the creases between flaps and side panels introduce
eccentricities along the loaded edges [1]. Since the buckling behaviour is of primary
interest, it was decided to test corrugated board panels with clean cut edges in a
specially designed panel compression rig, similar to a test frame for metal plates [2].
The panel compression rig furnishes simply supported boundary conditions, i.e. the
edges of the panel are prevented from moving out-of-plane without any rotational
restraint. The edges are also free to move in-plane. It was decided to measure the out-
of-plane displacement at the centre of the panel versus the compressive load. Out-of-
plane measurement of the panel deformation is easier than in-plane measurement. It
also simplifies (de-)mounting of the panel in the rig.

One objective of the tests is to obtain the critical buckling load. Since post-buckling of
a panel is stable, an analytical expression was needed that relates the compressive load
to the deformation of the panel. Banks and Harvey [3] originally derived a post-
buckling analysis, which has been modified in the presented model to include initial
imperfections. Panels are assumed to have orthotropic elastic constants as described by
Jones [4]. The critical buckling load of the panels was evaluated by fitting an
analytical expression for the load-deformation curve to the experimentally measured
curves. The fitting was made by non-linear regression analysis and comprised the
determination of three parameters in the analytical expression, one being the buckling
load, another the post-buckling coefficient and the third the amplitude of the initial
imperfection of the panel.

Results show a discrepancy of 15-20 % between experimentally estimated critical

buckling load and the theoretically predicted buckling load for orthotropic plates. This
difference is mainly attributed to transverse shear. A corresponding load difference
was observed between analytically predicted and experimentally measured post-
buckling curves at large deflections, i.e. twice or three times the board thickness. This
is probably caused by the non-linear material response of paper at high stresses and by
local buckling of the panel facings, i.e. the liners. A failure load of the corrugated
board panel was predicted by determining when stresses in the facings reached the
Tsai-Wu failure criterion [5]. The predicted failure load and measured average
experimental failure load were close, indicating that collapse of the panel is triggered
by material failure of one of the liners. Thus, the strength of the material is efficiently
utilised.

1
THEORETICAL MODEL

Basic assumptions and mechanics principles of a corrugated board panel

A simply supported corrugated board panel, loaded in compression, buckles in a

stable manner and carries load beyond the critical buckling load until compressive
failure occurs. Since the paper sheets used in the panel are thin compared to the
overall thickness of the panel, the variations of stresses in the thickness direction of
each sheet are ignored.

Paper Roll
2
Panel
1

z
tf
h c tc y,CD
2
1
λ x,MD

Figure 1. Geometry and orientation of a symmetrical corrugated board panel.

The paper is assumed to have orthotropic elastic properties with the elastic planes of
symmetry of the facings coinciding with the Cartesian coordinate system xyz of the
panel, see Figure 1. Total thickness of the panel is h, core height is c and facings and
core sheet are assumed to have thickness tf and tc, respectively.

The membrane forces Nx, Ny and Nxy are shown in Figure 2. These forces are oriented
according to the orientation of the panel in the loaded state. The displacements are
assumed to be small in the sense that sin (∂w / ∂x i ) = ∂w / ∂x i , i = 1, 2 and the projected
membrane forces in the x-y plane are in equilibrium.
z N
Nxy
dx
Nyx dy x
N ∂Nx
Nx + dx
∂N xy ∂x
N xy + dx
y ∂x
∂N yx
N yx + dy
∂Ny ∂y
Ny + dy
∂y

Figure 2. Membrane forces in the corrugated board panel.

2
It is assumed that the membrane strains are constant through the thickness of the panel
and that membrane forces carried by the corrugated core in x-direction can be
disregarded. The strains in panel facings due to membrane forces are

 h hh  N 
 −ν 21 0  x 
 ε x   2t f E11 2t f E22  h 
   h hh  Ny 
 ε y  = − hν 12 2t E 0  (1)
γ xy   f 11 2t f E22  h 
   h   N xy 
 0 0  
 2t f G12   h 

1
where h = and ν ij , Eij i,j =1,2 and G12 are the Poisson´s ratio, elastic and
α t c E 22,c
1+
2t f E 22
shear modulus of the facings, respectively. E22,c is the elastic modulus of the core
sheet in the cross direction CD and α is the take-up factor, i.e. the ratio between the
length of the corrugated core sheet and the length of the board.
z M y
Mxy

Myx dx
x
dy
Mx ∂M x
Mx + dx
∂x
∂M xy
y M xy + dx
∂x
∂M yx
M yx + dy
∂M y ∂y
My + dy
∂y

Figure 3. Bending of the corrugated board panel.

The bending and twisting curvatures and strains in the facings z = ±
(h − t )
f

ε x (z ) − ε x (0) ∂2w ε (z ) − ε y (0) ∂2w γ xy (z ) − γ xy (0) ∂2w

κx = = − 2 , κy = y = − 2 , κ xy = = −2 (2)
z ∂x z ∂y z ∂x∂y

are connected to the bending and twisting moments acting on the panel in Figure 3 by

 M x   D11 D12 0  κx 
    
 M y  = D12 D 22 0   κ y  (3)
M xy   0 0 D 66  κ xy 
 

where D ij are elements of the bending stiffness matrix [4,5].

3
Buckling of a corrugated board panel

When a panel with a small initial curvature is subjected to a compressive load it

bends, and the deflection may become large in comparison with the thickness of the
board, see Figure 4. Hence the geometrical non-linearity due to membrane stretching
has to be included in the analysis [6]. It is assumed that the membrane strains are
constant through the thickness of the panel, and can be expressed in terms of the
displacements at z=0 as follows
2
∂u 1  ∂w 
εx = +  
∂x 2  ∂x 
2
∂v 1  ∂w 
εy = +
∂y 2  ∂y  (4)
∂u ∂v ∂w ∂w
γ xy = + +
∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y

By adding the second derivative of εx with respect of y and second derivative of ε y

with respect of x and subtracting the second derivative of γ xy with respect of x and y,
a compatibility relation is obtained between the membrane strains and the out-of-
plane displacement [6].
2
∂ 2 ε x ∂ ε y ∂ γ xy  ∂ 2 w 
2 2
∂2w ∂2w
+ − =  − 2 (5)
∂y 2
∂x 2
∂x∂y  ∂x∂y  ∂x ∂y 2

If the expression in the stiffness matrix is substituted with the effective elastic
stiffnesses of the panel as follows

2t f 2t f 2t f
E11* = *
E11 , E 22 = E 22 , G12* = G12 , ν 12* = hν 12 (6)
h hh h

and the strains are subsequently substituted in eq. (2) we obtain

1 ∂ N y 1  1 2ν 12  ∂ N xy
2
1 ∂2 N x  ∂2w  ∂2w ∂2w
2 * 2

− + + * =   − 2 (7)
hE 22 ∂x
* 2
h  G12 E 11  ∂x∂y hE11 ∂y 2
* *
 ∂x∂y  ∂x ∂y 2

The solution of eq. (7) can be greatly simplified by introducing Airy's stress function,
F [6]. With this stress function the membrane forces in eq. (7) can be expressed as

∂2F ∂2F ∂2F

Nx = h , N = h , N = − h (8)
∂y 2 ∂x∂y
y
∂x 2
xy

where F=F(x,y). With these expressions for the forces, eq. (7) becomes

4
 1 ∂ 4 F  1 2ν 12  ∂ 4 F
2
1 ∂4F  ∂2w  ∂2w ∂2w
*

+ − + =  − 2 (9)
E *22 ∂x 4  G12* E 11*  ∂x 2 ∂y 2 E 11* ∂y 4  ∂x∂y  ∂x ∂y 2

If w=w(x,y) is the total out-of-plane displacement and w0 = w0 (x,y) is an initial

imperfection of the plate, eq. (9) can be written as

1 ∂ 4 F  1 2ν 12  ∂ 4 F
*
1 ∂4F
+ − + =
E *22 ∂x 4  G12* E 11*  ∂x 2 ∂y 2 E 11* ∂y 4

 ∂ 2 w  ∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w  ∂ 2 w0  ∂ 2 w0 ∂ 2 w0 
2 2

  − 2 −   −  (10)
 ∂x∂y  ∂x ∂y 2  ∂x∂y  ∂x 2 ∂y 2 
 

provided that the total displacements and the initial imperfections have the same
shape, differing only in magnitude. This equation links the membrane stresses with
out-of-plane displacements of orthotropic plates.

P
y

X b
-∆/2

P
∆/2
a

Figure 4. Simply supported corrugated board panel with compression of top and
bottom edges.

Boundary conditions
It is assumed that the panel is simply supported, see Figure 4. This means that edges
are rotationally unrestrained and no out-of-plane displacement is present. Neither are
in-plane shear stresses allowed. Thus at the unloaded edges x=0, a :

5
 w=0
 ∂2w ∂2w  (11)
M x = − D11  2 + ν 21 2  = 0
 ∂x ∂y 
τ xy = 0
σx = 0

b
The compressive displacements are constant along the loaded edges. Thus, at y = ± ,
2
the conditions are

w=0
 ∂2w ∂2w 
M y = − D22  2 + ν 12 2  = 0
 ∂y ∂x 
τ xy = 0
∆ (12)
v=m
2

Solution strategy

In order to obtain a relationship between the compression v and out-of-plane

displacement w the principle of minimum potential energy is used [3]. The total
potential strain energy V in the buckled plate consists of two parts - the potential
energy of bending and twisting, VB , and the membrane strain energy, VM .

V = V B + VM
b

1 2  ∂2
2
a
 ∂2  ∂ 2 
VB = ∫ ∫  D11  2 (w − w0 ) + 2 D11ν 21  2 (w − w0 ) 2 (w − w0 ) +
2 0 b   ∂x   ∂x  ∂y 
− 
2

∂ 2

2
 ∂2 
2
 (13)
+ D22  2 ( w − w0 )  + 4 D66  ( w − w0 )  dydx
 ∂y   ∂x∂y  
b

h 2  1  ∂ 2 F  2ν 12  ∂ 2 F ∂ 2 F  1  ∂ 2 F  1  ∂ 2F  
a 2 2 2

VM = ∫ ∫    −   +   +    dydx
2 0 b  E11  ∂y 2  E11  ∂y 2 ∂x 2  G12  ∂x∂y  E22  ∂x 2  
−  
2

Before minimising the total energy V , the out-of-plane displacement w and the initial
imperfection w0 are prescribed as follows [3]

 πy 
w = AX(x)cos  (14)
 b 

 πy 
w 0 = A 0 X(x)cos  (15)
 b 

6
where A and A0 are the amplitude of the out-of-plane displacement and initial im-
perfection, respectively. The panel is accordingly assumed to have a sinusoidal shape
in y-direction and X ( x) is a polynomial

 x  x 2  x 4 
X = 3.2 − 2  +    (16)
a a a 
 

that describes the deflected shape of the panel in x-direction, see Figure 5.
1.5

1
0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 5. Shape function used to model the buckled plate.

Integration of the membrane deformation ∂v / ∂y in eq.(4) is equal to the uniform

compression of the panel given by eq.(12)
b

2
1  ∂w 
2
1  ∂w 0  
2

v = ∫ ε y −   +   dy (17)
b 2  ∂y  2  ∂y  
−  
2

Combining eq.(1), (6) and (8) gives

1  ∂2F ∂2F 
εy = 
* 
− ν  (18)
 ∂x ∂y 2 
2 21
E22

Assuming a solution to eq.(10) [3] for a panel with uniform compression of its edges
as shown in Figure 4

 2πy 
F = F1 ( x ) + F2 ( x )cos  (19)
 b 

Substitution of eq. (14), (15), (18) and (19) into eq.(17) and integrating gives

2
∂ 2 F1 π 2
( )
*
* v E 22
= E +   A − A0 X
2 2
(20)
∂x
22
2
b 4 b

Substitution of eq.(14), (15), (19) and (20) into eqs. (13) and minimising with respect
to A yields the relationship between A and v

 A C
v = −1 − 0  1 − (A 2 − A02 ) 3
C
(21)
 A  C2 C1

where constants C1 , C2 and C3 are presented in the Appendix with a detailed solution.

7
Substitution of eq.(21) into (20) the relationship between the applied load P and out-
of-plane displacement A is given by integrating the stress σy over the loaded edge
y=b/2

∂2F ∂ 2 F1
a a a
P = −h ∫ σ y dx = −h ∫ dx = − h ∫0 ∂x 2 dx (22)
0 0
∂x 2

Further integration of eq.(22) gives

 A 
(
P = Pcrit 1 − 0  + Ψ A 2 − A0
2
) (23)
 A
where the critical buckling load

ah C 2 (24)
Pcrit = E22
*

b C1
and the post-buckling parameter is

 E *22 ah C3  (25)
Ψ= − 2C1 
 b C1 

Failure criterion

From the solution above, the total stresses in the inner facing z = −(h − t f ) / 2 of the
panel in Figure 4

h ∂2F D11  ∂2 ∂2 
σx = +  2 (w − w0 ) + ν 21 2 (w − w0 )
2t f ∂y 2
( h − t f )t f  ∂x ∂y 

hh ∂ 2 F D22  ∂2 ∂2 
σy = +  2 (w − w0 ) + ν 12 2 (w − w0 ) (26)
2t f ∂x 2
(h − t f )t f  ∂y ∂x 

h ∂2F 2 D66  ∂2 
τ xy = − +  (w − w0 )
2t f ∂x∂y ( h − t f )t f  ∂x∂y 

can be obtained for a specified value of the out-of-plane deformation A.

Subsequently, the stresses in eq. (26) are inserted in the Tsai-Wu failure criterion
assuming plane stress [5]

Γ1σ x + Γ2σ y + Γ11σ x2 + Γ22σ y2 + Γ66τ xy2 + 2Γ12σ xσ y = 1 (27)

8
 1 1 1 1
where Γ11 = − , Γ22 = − , Γ12 = − 0.36 F11F22 , Γ1 = + ,
σ x,tσ x,c σ y,tσ y,c σ x,t σ x,c
1 1 1
Γ2 = + , Γ66 =
σ y,t σ y,c σ x,cσ y,c

The subscript j=t or j=c of strength σi,j ,i=x,y, denote the strength in tension and
compression, respectively. The expressions for Γ12 and Γ66 are approximations for
paper materials [7]. A geometrical interpretation of the failure criterion, eq. (27), is
depicted in Figure 6. Failure occurs when the total stress vector [σx, σy, τxy] of a facing
reaches the surface of the ellipsoid in Figure 6.
failure
surface

σ
x

σ
y

τ
xy

Figure 6. Geometrical interpretation of the Tsai-Wu failure criterion.

PANEL COMPRESSION TESTS

A panel compression rig was built similar to a test frame for metal plates designed by
A. C. Walker [2], see Figure 7. The rig is composed of a frame that supports the
bottom and side edges of the panel, and a crosshead that slides in the frame, supports
the top edge and loads the panel. In this way the crosshead is guided to prevent out-of-
plane movements. Furthermore, top and bottom supports consist of sectioned slotted
rollers supported by needle bearings and mounted in grooves in the base plate and the
crosshead. The panel is subsequently inserted into the slots.

The side edges are prevented from moving out-of-plane by knife-edge supports.
Furthermore, the out-of-plane displacement at the panel centre is measured by a
digital displacement gauge, see Figure 7 and Figure 8. Panels size 400x400 mm were
cut from corrugated board and tested under compression with the cross-direction (CD)
oriented in the direction of loading. Only flat panels with an imperfection less than
half the thickness were selected for testing. Specimens were preconditioned for 24
o
hours at 30% RH, 23 C, and subsequently conditioned for 24 hours at 50% RH, 23
o
C, before testing. A total of 12 panels were tested and material and panel data is
presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

9
Figure 7. Panel compression rig and a corrugated board panel loaded to failure.

Figure 8. Measuring the deflection of a corrugated panel.

Table 1. Material data for liner and fluting of the corrugated board.
Outer.
Inner Facing Core Semi- Facing
Unit Direction Kraft Liner Chemical Kraft Liner
Single Facer Medium Double
Backer
Basis weight g/m2 184.3 140.2 187.4
Thickness, t mm 0.268 0.217 0.244
2 7980 4750 8090
Elastic modulus, E11 N/mm MD
Elastic modulus, E22 N/mm2 CD 3190 1560 2490
Tensile strength, σx,t N/mm2 MD 81.4 46.9 82.1
Tensile strength, σy,t N/mm 2
CD 28.4 18.8 31.5
Compr. Strength, σx,c N/mm2 MD 30.8 23.1 29.9
Compr. Strength, σy,c N/mm 2
CD 16.6 13.4 16.2

10
Table 2. Corrugated board data calculated using material data in Table 1. Transverse
shear stiffness values are measured values using three-point bending [8].

Basis weight g/m2 556

Thickness, h mm 4.02
Corrugutation wavelength, λ mm 7.26
Bending stiffness, D11 Nm 14.6
Bending stiffness, D22 Nm 5.43
Bending stiffness, D12 Nm 2.71
Bending stiffness, D66 Nm 3.34
Transverse shear stiffness, A44 N/mm 39.2
Transverse shear stiffness, A55 N/mm 5.6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The load-displacement curves of the tested corrugated board panels show consistent
buckling behaviour, see Figure 9. The dashed line is the analytical solution according
to eq. (23) using the material and panel data in Tables 1 and 2, giving the critical
buckling load Pcrit = 958 N, which is in accordance with classical buckling theory for
orthotropic plates [4,11], and the post-buckling parameter Ψ= 8.6 N/mm2, see Table 3.
Load [ kN]

1.4
Predicted failure load
1.2
Experimental failure load
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Out-of-Plane Displacement [mm]

Figure 9. Load-displacement curves of 12 corrugated board panels. The dashed

curve is the theoretical model with the analytical buckling load and post-
buckling parameter. Failure predicted using the Tsai-Wu failure criterion.
The dot-dashed curve is the theoretical model fitted to experimental
curves.

11
Table 3. Analytically and experimentally determined parameters.

Pcrit,exp Pcrit A0 Ψexp Ψ Pfail, exp Pfail

2 2
Unit N N mm N/mm N/mm N N
Average 814 958 0.8 3.55 8.6 1195 1265
Std 16 0.3 0.59 60
Max 844 1.3 4.68 1288
Min 786 0.5 2.88 1138

When the analytical out-of-plane deflection A has reached levels about half the plate
thickness, the difference in analytical and experimental loads is about 20%. The
brown dot-dashed line was determined by fitting the analytical expression in eq. (23),
i.e. parameters Pcrit,exp , Ψexp and A0, to the experimental curves using non-linear
regression.

The regression was made using commercially available software called SAS [9]. The
experimental critical buckling load Pcrit,exp = 814 N and the post-buckling coefficient
Ψexp = 3.55 N/mm2 for the tested panels, see Table 3. The analytically and
experimentally determined critical buckling loads differ by 18 %.

The discrepancy between analytical and experimental post-buckling parameters in

Table 3 is probably due to the non-linear response of the paper material at high
stresses and local buckling of the facings, see Figure 10 [10]. However, the
analytically calculated failure load Pfail =1265 N differs only 6 % from the
experimental failure load of Pfail,exp = 1195 N. The analytical failure load was
obtained by checking when the stresses [σx, σy, τxy] in the inner facing satisfied the
Tsai-Wu failure criterion in eq. (16). In Figure 11, failure of the inner facing is
depicted by a range of colour fields indicating how close the material is to failure.
This is expressed by the ratio between the length of the vector [σx, σy, τxy] and an
aligned vector that reaches the surface of the ellipsoid in Figure 6.

Figure 10. Local buckling of the facing on the concave side is visible just prior and
after failure.

12
 y
200 0,95-1
190
0,9-0,95
180
0,85-0,9
170
160 0,8-0,85
150 0,75-0,8
140 0,7-0,75
130 0,65-0,7
120 0,6-0,65
110
0,55-0,6
100
0,5-0,55
90
0,45-0,5
80
70 0,4-0,45
60 0,35-0,4
50 0,3-0,35
40 0,25-0,3
30 0,2-0,25
20
0,15-0,2
10
0,1-0,15
0
100 x
0

20

40

120

140

160

180

200
60

80

0,05-0,1
0-0,05
Edge Centre

Figure 11. Colour fields indicate how close to material failure different areas of the
inner facing are according to the Tsai-Wu criterion. Due to symmetry only
the top-left quarter of the panel is shown.

CONCLUSIONS

A rig that furnishes simply supported boundary conditions has been designed to test
corrugated board panels. Experimental results are consistent. An expression linking
applied load with the out-of-plane deformation is derived. The first part of the
expression is similar to ordinary Euler buckling of a column, where the maximum
compressive load is limited by the critical buckling load. In the second part of the
expression the membrane forces produce a parabolic relationship between the
compressive load and out-of-plane displacement. The expression was fitted to
experimental measured curves using non-linear regression to evaluate the critical
buckling load and post-buckling coefficient for corrugated board panels. The results
show an 18 % difference between experimentally estimated critical buckling load and
the analytically predicted critical buckling load for orthotropic plates. This is partly
attributed to excluded transverse shear deformation in the analytical solution.
Compare the experimental value of 814 N with 870 N obtained from an analysis of a
panel including transverse shear deformation [11,12]. A significant difference was
also observed between analytically predicted and experimentally measured load-
displacement curves at large out-of-plane deformation. This is probably caused by the
non-linear material behaviour of paper and local buckling of the panel facings, i.e. the
liners. However, the 6 % difference between the analytically calculated failure load
and the experimental failure load is quite small. This suggests that collapse of the
corrugated board panel is triggered by material failure of the inner facing. The
strength of the material is therefore efficiently utilised.

13
REFERENCES

1. M. Renman, "A mechanical characterization of creased zones of corrugated

board", Licentiate thesis, Department of Engineering Logistics, Lund University,
Sweden, 1994.

2. A. C. Walker, "Thin Walled Structural Forms under Eccentric Compressive

Load Actions", Ph. D Thesis, University of Glasgow, June, 1964.

3. J. Rhodes and J. M. Harvey, "Examination of Plate Post-Buckling Behaviour",

Journal of the Eng. Mech. Div., vol. 103, No. EM3, pp. 461-478, 1977.

4. R. M. Jones, "Mechanics of Composite Materials", Hemisphere Publishing

Corp. New York, 1975.

5. C. Fellers, B. S. Westerlind and A. de Ruvo, "An Investigation of the Biaxial

Failure of Paper: Experimental Study and Theoretical Analysis", Transaction of
the Symposium held at Cambridge: September 1981, Vol. 1, pp. 527-559, 1983.

6. S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere, "Theory of Elastic Stability", McGraw-Hill,

1961.

7. L. A. Carlsson, T. Nordstrand and B. Westerlind, "On the Elastic Stiffnesses of

Corrugated Core Sandwich", Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, Vol.
3, pp. 253-267, 2001.

8. T. Nordstrand and L.A. Carlsson, "Evaluation of Transverse Shear Stiffness of

Structural Core Sandwich Plates", Composite Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 145-153,
1997.

9. SAS Institute Inc., 100 SAS Campus DriveCary, NC 27513-2414, USA.

10. P. Patel, T. Nordstrand, L. A. Carlsson, "Local buckling and collapse of

corrugated board under biaxial stress", Composite Structures, Vol. 39, pp. 93-
110, 1997.

11. T. Nordstrand, "On Buckling Loads for Edge Loaded Orthotropic Plates
including Transverse Shear", To be submitted to Composite Structures.

12. T. Nordstrand, "Parametrical Study of the Post-buckling Strength of Structural

Core Sandwich Panels", Composite Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 441-451, 1995.

14
APPENDIX

Marquerre's differential equation linking in-plane stresses with out-of-plane

displacements for orthotropic plates is as follows

1 ∂ 4 F  1 2ν 12  ∂ 4 F 1 ∂ 4F
*

+ − + * =
E 22 ∂x G 
 12 E 11  ∂x ∂y E 11 ∂y 4
* 4 * * 2 2

∂ 2 w ∂ 2 w  ∂ 2 w0  ∂ 2 w0 ∂ 2 w0 
2 2
 ∂ 2w 
=   − 2 −  −  (1)
 ∂x∂y  ∂x ∂y 2  ∂x∂y  ∂x 2 ∂y 2 
 

If the deflections w and w 0 are of the same form and their magnitudes are related by the
expression

w = AX ( x) cos πy  (2)
 b

and the initial imperfections as

w0 = A0 X ( x) cos πy  (3)
 b

then a solution of eq. (1) for a plate with uniform compressive displacements of its
ends, as shown in Fig. 4, is

F = F1 (x ) + F2 (x )cos 2πy  (4)

 b

Substituting eqs. (2-4) into (1) gives

( )[ ( )]
2
1 1 π  2
F1 =   A 2 − A0 XX II + X I
IV 2
(5)
*
E22 2 b 
2 4
1  2π   2π  1
F2 −   HF2 +   * F2 =
IV II

 b   b  E11
*
E22

( )[ ( )]
2
1 π  2 2
  A − A0 XX − X
2 II I
(6)
2 b 

1 2ν 12
*

where H= − .
G 12* E 11*

Thus F1 is independent of y and hence constant along the length of the plate. While F1
can not give a stress in the x-direction, it does give a stress in the y-direction which is
found by integrating equation (5) twice.

A1
This gives

( )
2
E*  π  2 X
2
= 22   A 2 − A0 + Bx + C
II
F1 (7)
2 b 2

where B and C are constants and found from the membrane boundary conditions on the
loaded ends.

To obtain an expression for F2 we assume that the deflections across the plate are in the
form of a polynomial series

N
X = ∑ An X n (8)
n =1

where An ≤ 1 is the relative amplitude of the normalised shape function X n which in

turn is assumed to take the general algebraic form

p
r
x
X n = ∑ C pn   (9)
p =1 a

Substituting eq. (8) into eq. (6) gives

2 4
1  2π   2π  1
F2 −   HF2 +   * F2 =
IV II

   b  E 11
*
E22 b

( )∑∑ A A (X )
2
1 π  2 N N
  A − A0 Xm − Xn Xm
2 II I I
n m n (10)
2 b  n =1 m =1

Inserting the expression for X n , eq. (9), into eq. (10) and manipulating gives

2 4
1  2π   2π  1
F2 −   HF2 +   * F2 =
IV II

 b   b  E 11
*
E22

( )∑∑ A A ∑ B
2 s
1π  2 N N 2 ( r −1)
x
  A − A0 smn  
2
n m (11)
2 b  n =1 m =1 s =0 a

where

r
Bsmn = ∑ C( s +2 − q ) n Cqm [ q ( q − 1) − q ( s + 2 − q ) ] (12)
q =1

A2
under the condition that C( s +2 − q <1) n = C( s +2 − q > r ) n = 0 . A solution for F2 can be found by
putting F2 in the same form as the right hand side of eq. (11),

( )∑∑ A A φ
2
1 π  2 N N
F2 = 2   A − A0
2
n m mn (x )E11* b 4 (13)
2a  b  n =1 m =1

Substituting eq. (13) into eq. (11) gives

2 4 s
 2π   2π  1
2 ( r −1)
1 B  x
φ mn IV −   Hφ mn II +   * φ mn = ∑ *smn4   (14)
 b   b  E11 s =0 E11b  a 
*
E22

If φ mn, part in turn is assumed to take the same form as the right-hand side of
Eq. (14),
2 ( r −1) s
 x
φ mn, part = ∑
s =0
Lsmn  
a
(15)

we obtain, by substituting eq. (15) into eq. (14) and equating coefficients from each
term, for s = 2( r − 1) to 2( r − 1) − 1
B
Lsmn = smn4 (16)
( 2 π)
and for s = 2( r − 2) to 2(r − 1) − 3
B H (s + 1)(s + 2 )
Lsmn = smn4 + L( s + 2 )mn (17)
(2π ) 1  2π  2
2

  a
E11*  b 

and for 0 ≤ s ≤ 2(r − 1)

B H (s + 1)(s + 2)
Lsmn = smn4 + L( s + 2 )mn −
(2π ) 1  2π  2
2

  a
E11*  b 
1
(s + 1)(s + 2)(s + 3)(s + 4)
E*
− 22 4
L( s + 4 )mn (18)
1  2π  4
  a
E11*  b 

Eqs. (16) - (18) thus give the particular integral solution for eq. (14) when evaluated in
the right order. To obtain a complete solution for φ , the complementary function
solution must be added to eq. (15). There are three possible solutions to the
homogeneous equation,
2 4
 2π  *  2π  E 22
*
φ mn IV −   E22 Hφ mn + 
II
 * φ mn = 0 (19)
 b   b  E11

consistent with the values of E 11* , E *22 and H .

A3
 *
2 E 22
1. If E *22 H 2 > 4 , then all roots are real.
E11*
*
2 E 22
*
2. If E 22 H2 =4 , then the roots are equal. This corresponds to the isotropic case.
E11*
*
2 E22
*
3. If E 22 H2 <4 , then all roots are complex.
E11*
Only the first of these conditions is dealt with since this is consistent with the class of
materials considered. Thus the solution to equation (19) is

φ mn,hom = C1mn cosh k i x + C 2 mn sinh k1 x + C3mn cosh k 2 x + C 4 mn sinh k 2 x (20)

where
1
 2π  2 1  E*  2
  E22 H + E22 H − 4 22* 
* 2
k1 =  * 2
(21a)
 b  2  E11 

and
1
 2π  2 1  E*  2
  E22 H − E 22 H − 4 22* 
* 2
k 2 =  * 2
(21b)
 b  2  E11 


The complete solution for φ mn is

2 ( r −1) s
x
φ mn = ∑L
s =0
  +C1mn cosh k1 x + C2 mn sinh k1 x +
a
smn

+ C3mn cosh k 2 x + C 4 mn sinh k 2 x (22)

The values of the constants C imn are obtained by considering the boundary conditions at
x=0 and x=a. It can be shown that if the unloaded edges are free to move in the plane of
the plate, the shear stress τ xy and the stress normal to the edge σ x must be 0.

∂ 2F ∂ 2F
Since σ x = and τ = − , it follows by substituting eq. (13) into eq. (4) and
∂y 2 xy
∂x∂y
differentiate eq. (4) accordingly that

φ mn (0) = 0; φ mn (a ) = 0; φ mn I (0) = 0; φ mn I (a ) = 0 (23)

The constants are thus found to be

k1T3 ( T1mn + T6mn ) − T4 ( T2 mn + T7 mn )

C1mn =
T4 T5 − k1T3
2

T ( T + T ) − T3 ( T2 mn + T7 mn )
C2 mn = − 5 1mn 6mn (24)
T4 T5 − k1T3
2

C3mn = −C1mn − L0 mn

A4
 k1 L
C 4 mn = − C1mn − 1mn
k2 k2 a

where
2 ( r −1)
T1mn = ∑L
s=0
smn

2 ( r −1)−1
L( s +1)mn
T2 mn = ∑s =0 a
(s + 1)

T3 = cosh (k1a ) − cosh(k 2 a )

k
T4 = sinh (k1a ) − 1 sinh (k 2 a )
k2
T5 = k1 sinh (k1a ) − k 2 sinh (k 2 a )
L
T6 mn = − L0 mn cosh(k 2 a ) − 1mn sinh (k 2 a )
k 2b
L
T7 mn = − L0 mn k 2 sinh (k 2 a ) − 1mn cosh (k 2 a )
b

The stress function F is completely determined in terms of the deflection given by eqs.
(2) and (3). The constants in eq. (7) are found by compressing the plate uniformly along
the loaded edges an amount v=-∆, see Fig. 4. During compression of the plate, it is
assumed that no shear stresses are introduced along the loaded edges.

b b
Thus τ xy = 0 when y = − and y = and the compressive displacement must be
2 2
b
2 1  ∂w  1  ∂w  
2 2

v = ∫ ε y −   +  0  dy (25)
b 2  ∂y  2  ∂y  
−  
2

From Hooke's law we obtain

1 ν
ε y = * σ y − 21* σ x (26)
E22 E 22
and if
∂ 2F ∂ 2F
σx = ; σ = (27)
∂y 2 ∂x 2
y

a combination of equations (25) - (27) gives

b
2  1  ∂ 2F ∂ 2 F  1  ∂w  1  ∂w0  
2 2

v = ∫  *  2 −ν 21 2  −   +   dy (28)
b  E 22  ∂x ∂y  2  ∂y  2  ∂y  
− 
2

II
Substituting for F , w and w0 and integrating eq. (28), F1 is found to be

A5
 ( )
2
π  2
*
v E 22
F1 = E 22 +   A − A0 X
II * 2 2
(29)
b 4 b

Substituting eq. (7) into eq. (29) gives

b
v= *
(Bx + C ) (30)
E22

To obtain uniform end displacement across the plate, B must be zero and the remaining
coefficient will be
* v
C = E22 (31)
b

which is the stress induced in an unbuckled plate by the compression v.

The strain energy in the buckled plate consists of two parts: the potential energy of
bending and twisting, VB , and the membrane stretch energy, VM :

1  ∂2
2
a 2
 ∂2  ∂ 2 
VB = ∫ ∫  D 
11  ( w − w )
0 
 + 2 D ν 
11 21  ( w − w )  2 (w − w0 ) +
0 
2 0 b   ∂x 2
  ∂x
2
 ∂y 
− 
2

∂ 2
  ∂2
2

2

+ D22  2 ( w − w0 )  + 4 D66  ( w − w0 )  dydx (32)
 ∂y   ∂x∂y  

h 2  1  ∂ 2 F  2ν 12
2
 ∂ 2F ∂ 2F 
a *

VM = ∫ ∫  *  2  − *  2 +
2 
2 0 b  E 11  ∂y  E 11  ∂y ∂x 
− 
2

1  ∂ 2F 
2
1  ∂ 2F 
2

+   + *  2   dydx (33)
G12*  ∂x∂y  E 22  ∂x  

Substituting the derivatives of F and w using eqs. (2) - (4), (8), (13) and (29) in eqs.
(32) - (33) and integrating with respect to y gives

b 
a N N
VB = ( A − A0 ) ∫  D11 ∑∑ An Am X n X m −
2 II II

4  0  n=1 m =1
2
π  N N
−   ν 21 D11 ∑∑ An Am X n X m +
II

b n =1 m =1

π  N N4
π  N N 2
 
+   D22 ∑∑ An Am X n X m + 4  D66 ∑∑ An Am X n X m  dx 
I I
(34)
b n =1 m =1 b n =1 m =1  

A6
 4
bh  2
( ) ∫  πb 
a * N N N N
E22
∑∑∑∑ A A
2
VM =  A − A0 Ap Aq X n X m X p X q +
2
n m
0   8
4  n =1 m =1 p =1 q =1
2
 π  E 11 b
4 * 8 N N N N
+ 
 b  4 E22 a
* 4 ∑∑∑∑ A A
n =1 m =1 p =1 q =1
n m Ap Aqφ mn φ pq +
II II

4 4
 2π   π  E11b N N N N
* 8

4 ∑∑∑∑ n m p q mn pq
+    A A A Aφ φ +
 b   b  4a n=1 m=1 p =1 q =1
 2π   π  ν 12 E11b N N N N
2 4 * * 8

+
 b
  
  b 2 a 4 ∑∑∑∑
n =1 m =1 p =1 q =1
An Am Ap Aqφ mnφ pq +
II

 2π   π  E b
2 4 *2 8 N N N N 
+     11* 4 ∑∑∑∑ An Am Ap Aqφ mn φ pq  dx +
I I

 b   b  4G12 a n=1 m=1 p=1 q =1 

  π  bh *  v  N N
2a 2
v
a
(
+ 2E *22   ∫ dx  + A 2 − A02   )
E22   ∫ ∑∑ An Am X n X m dy (35)
 b  0  b 4  b  0 n=1 m=1

The total strain energy is obtained by adding VB and VM ,

V = VB + VM (36)

In order to minimise this expression with respect to A we have to know the values of
Ai , i=1..N, i.e. the relative amplitudes of the shape functions. Assuming that the
imperfect plate will have the same deflected shape as a perfect plate, with A0 = 0 , we
can obtain an accurate description of Ai by the first buckling mode. Initially, limited
bending can be produced with negligible membrane stretching of the middle plane, and
we need to consider only the bending energy and the corresponding work done by the
external forces acting in the middle plane of the plate, i.e. all terms that include v in eq.
(35). Subsequently, all terms in eq. (36) that contain the fourth power of Ai can be
omitted. Thus equation (36) can be written as

a
[
2
bA2 N N
π 
V= ∑∑ An m ∫
A  D X
11 n
II
X m
II
− 2



ν 21 D11 X n X m II +
4 n =1 m =1 0 b

π 
2
π 
4
π  *  v 
2
  E*  v 
2

+ 4  D66 X n X m +   D22 X n X m +   E22

I I
h  X n X m  dy  + abh 22   (37)
b b b b   2 b

The minimum of V is found by differentiating V with respect to Ai and using

∂V ∂V ∂V
dV = dA1 + dA2 +......+ dAn = 0 (38)
∂A1 ∂A2 ∂An

which in turn gives N linear simultaneous equations, from which the value of v = −∆ crit
to cause buckling can be found. The relative values of Ai can also be obtained. Thus

A7
 a
 π 
2
π 
2
π 
4

S nm = ∫  D11 X n X m −   ν 21 D11 X n X m + 4  D66 X n X m +   D22 X n X m dx
II II II I I

0  b b b 

(39)
a
 π  * h
2

Qnm = ∫   E22 X n X m dx
0  b  b 
gives
 T

 S + S − 2∆ crit Q  A = 0 (40)

and the non-trivial solution of eq. (42) demands that

T
S + S − 2∆ crit Q = 0 (41)

Solving eq. (41) for ∆ crit and inserting the value of ∆ crit in eq. (40) enable us to obtain
the normalised eigenvector A . Thus all Ai :s are determined.

Inserting the values of Ai in equation (36) and minimising V with respect to A yields the
relationship between A and v as follows:

 A C
v = −1 − 0  2 − A 2 − A0 (
2 C3
) (42)
 A  1
C C1
where
2
π  E h N N
* a
C1 =   22 ∑∑ An Am ∫ X n X m dy (43)
 b  8 n=1 m=1 0

b N N  a  π 
2

C2 = ∑∑ n m ∫ 11 n m  b  ν 21 D11 X n X m +
−
II II II
A A  D X X  
8 n=1 m=1  0 
π 
2
π 
4
 
+ 4  D66 X n X m +   D22 X n X m  dy 
I I
(44)
b b  

4
 π  bh N N N N  a  E 22
*
C3 =   ∑∑∑∑
 b  4 n =1 m=1 p =1 q =1
An m p q ∫ 
A A A XnXmX pXq +
0  8
2
E11* b 8  1 ″ ″  2π   2ν 12
2 *
″ 1 ′ ′
+  * φ mn φ pq +    * φ mnφ pq + * φ mn φ pq +
4a 4  22
E  b   11
E G 12

 2π  1
2
   
+   * φ mnφ pq    dx  (45)
 b  E11    

A8
 Paper 6
_______

Local Buckling and Collapse of Corrugated

Board under Biaxial Stress
by
P. Patel, Nordstrand, T. and Carlsson, L.A.
Composite Structures, Vol. 39, No. 1-2, pp. 93-110, 1997.
Detta är en tom sida!
 Paper 7
_______

A Strength Prediction Method for Corrugated

Board Containers
by
T. Nordstrand, Blackenfeldt, M. and Renman, M.
Report TVSM-3065, Div. of Structural Mechanics,
Lund University, Sweden, 2003.
Detta är en tom sida!
 A Strength Prediction Method for Corrugated Board
Containers

Tomas Nordstrand, Mikael Blackenfeldt and Magnus Renman

SCA Research, Box 716, 851 21 Sundsvall, Sweden

ABSTRACT

A method for prediction of the top-to-bottom compression strength of corrugated

board containers using finite element analysis was developed. Up to triple-wall
corrugated board is accommodated in the finite element model. In order to keep
computational time down, the corrugated core layer(s) is considered to be
homogeneous with effective material properties, and the complete corrugated board is
represented by a multi-ply eight node isoparametric shell element. The shell elements
represent the side panels of the box. Coupling elements are used to represent creases
at the top and bottom edges.

Buckling and large displacements are considered in the analysis, and container
collapse loads are predicted using the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. It is assumed that
failure is triggered by material failure in one of the facings of the corrugated board.
Local buckling of the corrugated board constituents is not considered in this study,
and orthotropic linear elastic material properties are assumed for each layer.

The boxes analysed fail in a post-buckled state. A non-linear finite element method
involving Newton-Raphson iterations is discussed in conjunction with the buckling
analysis. Convergence of the predicted collapse load with the number of elements
used in the model is studied, as well as the sensitivity of the collapse load to the
imposed stiffness at the loaded boundaries. Different buckling modes of a box are
simulated, giving an in-depth understanding of the relation between the strength of a
box and constraints imposed on the panels by the corners of the box. Finally, the
results of an extensive testing program comprising about 1,300 box strength tests are
summarised and used to verify the container strength prediction method developed.

1
INTRODUCTION

Although corrugated board has been used for over a century, the packaging design
process is still mostly empirical or semi-empirical. Research on corrugated board has
been lagging behind its industrial application [1]. There are many reasons for this.
One is that the mechanics of corrugated board and packaging are quite complex due to
the structure of the board, difficulties in loading and control of boundary conditions.

Consideration of the corrugated board market in recent years, with fewer companies
increasing their market shares, has been a driving force for improvement of design
procedures. Production volumes have increased considerably. Even small savings in
raw material achieved through improved design procedures imply significant cost
savings [2].

In addition, with the development of powerful computing tools and structural analysis
codes such as finite element software, it is now possible to obtain numerical solutions
for the stresses and deformations in corrugated board structures when loaded [3]. The
benefits of such an analysis are apparent since the analysis is based on the geometry
of the corrugated board and the physical properties of the constituent liners and
corrugated medium. In contrast, the empirical approach to design requires
manufacture of the board and tedious making and testing of boxes and specimens, cut
from board [4].

This work was initiated with the objective of developing a design method based on
finite element analysis to predict top-to-bottom compression strength of corrugated
containers. The finite element model includes multi-ply eight node isoparametric
shell elements for the side panels and coupling elements representing creases at top
and bottom edges [5, 6]. Creases are scored folding lines between flaps and sides.
McKee and Gander [4] found that 90% of the compression deformation of a box
occurs in the creases. The residual compressive and rotational stiffness of the creases,
being most important [7], are accommodated using coupling elements [5].
Extensional, shear and bending stiffnesses of the corrugated board are calculated from
the geometry and material properties of the constituent liners and medium [8-11]. The
material properties are assumed to be orthotropic linear elastic.

In a previous study of collapse of corrugated board panels it was shown that the Tsai-
Wu failure criterion [12-13] could be used to predict material failure in one of the
facings of the corrugated board panels. The same failure criterion is used in the
present analysis of boxes, and local buckling of the outer facings is disregarded [14].
The buckling of side panels requires a non-linear finite element analysis that is solved
using the Newton-Raphson method [15, 16]. The solution is terminated when the
failure criterion is satisfied.

Convergence of the predicted collapse load with the number of elements used in the
model is studied, as well as the sensitivity of the collapse load to the imposed stiffness
at the loaded boundaries. Different buckling modes of a box are simulated, giving an
in-depth understanding of the relation between the strength of a box and constraints
imposed on the panels by the corners of the box.

2
Finally, extensive testing of boxes made from two different corrugated board grades is
used for comparison with finite element predictions.

A commercially available finite element code called ANSYS [5] was chosen to solve
these tasks for two main reasons. The software is adapted to operate in Microsoft’s
Windows NT environment, and the ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) [5]
makes it easy to implement algorithms for processing the finite element models.

NUMERICAL MODEL

Material stiffness properties

Up to triple-wall corrugated board is accommodated in the finite element model. To

keep computational time down the corrugated core(s) is homogenised [8-11] and the
complete corrugated board is represented by a multi-ply eight node isoparametric shell
element, SHELL99 [5]. Each layer, from three to seven, of the homogenised
corrugated board is described by its thickness and orthotropic elastic properties, i.e. the
elastic moduli (EX, EY, EZ), Poisson’s ratio (NUXY, NUYZ, NUXZ) and the shear
moduli (GXY, GYZ, GXZ). The elastic planes of symmetry are aligned with the
machine direction(MD) and cross direction (CD) of the board, see Figure 1.

ZD Z
CD y

hc

X
λ MD

Figure 1. Homogenisation of the corrugated core of single-wall corrugated board.

Model and boundary conditions used for a regular slotted container

In a finite element analysis of a corrugated board container, a quarter of the box is

represented by ixk+jxk 8-node elements, i=j and k=2i, where i represents the number
of elements parallell with the x-axis, j the number of elements parallell with the y-axis
and k the number of elements parallell with the z-axis, see Figure 3. Then the number
of nodes is (16+5(i+j-2)+10(k-1)+3(i+j-2)(k-1)). Each node has six degrees of
freedom, viz. translation and rotation along axis parallell to the nodal coordinate
system. When considering a box loaded under compression, it is recognised that the
creases at the top and bottom affect the loading of the box [4]. In order to predict top-
to-bottom compression of boxes the properties of the creases were measured in earlier
work [7]. The soft creases are accommodated in the FEM-model by edge springs
attached at the loaded top and bottom edges. The springs are modelled using element
COMBIN14 [5] and the stiffness of the springs is adjusted in order to introduce
consistent nodal forces on the shell elements if uniformly compressed [16]. The creases
also introduce an eccentricity of the applied loads [7], which is simulated by

3
introducing a moment that is constant at the top and bottom edges using element
COMBIN37 [5], see Figure 2. The vertical edges at the four corners of the box are
connected in translation only with no rotational constraint.

Figure 2. Elements used to simulate the response of the creases.

A quarter of the box is analysed due to symmetry. Boundary conditions are imposed on
the nodes along the edges and nodes at the planes of symmetry according to Figure 3.
Only the two symmetry planes indicated in the figure are utilized since the boxes
analysed in general have more complex geometry than the box shown in figure 3.

k=16

i=8
j=8

Figure 3. Quarter of a box model with boundary conditions:

L9: DX=0, DZ=displacement step, (nodes are free to move in y-direction except where L9 intersects L7)
L12: DY=0, DZ=displacement step
L2: DX=0, DZ=0
L3: DY=0, DZ=0
L10: Translation coupling of the nodes at the corner .
L7: DY=0, RotX=0, RotZ=0 (symmetry)
L13: DX=0, RotY=0, RotZ=0 (symmetry)
L9, L12, L2, L3: Connected to elements shown in Figure 2.

4
Analysis

The stress-strain relationship of each layer, j, can be expressed by [8]

{σ } = [Q] {ε }
j j j (1)

where {σ}j and {ε}j are the vector stress and strain, respectively, in a plate. Plane
stress is assumed and the elastic stiffness matrix [Q]j is defined as

 E x, j ν xy, j E y, j 0 0 0 
ν E E y, j 0 0 0 
 yx, j x, j
 0 0 G xy, j 0 0 
[Q] j = 1  G yz, j  (2)
1 - ν xy, jν yx, j  0 0 0 0 
 f 
 G xz, j 
 0 0 0 0 
 f 

where ν xy, j and ν yx, j are the Poisson's ratios, E x, j and E y, j are the elastic moduli and
Gxy, j , Gyz, j and Gxz, j are the in-plane and transverse shear moduli, respectively. In a
finite element analysis where the transverse shear strain is assumed to be constant
through the thickness of each layer, it is common to reduce the transverse shear moduli
by a "shear correction factor" of 1.2 to compensate for the excessive amount of shear
strain energy produced [5]. In the current finite element formulation the transverse
shear moduli of each layer are reduced by a factor f given by
A
f = 1.2 or f = 1.0 + 0.2 whichever is greater, where A is the area of the element
25h 2
and h the thickness of the panel. The latter expression is included in order to prevent
shear locking [5]. The homogeneous properties of the corrugated core layers are
obtained according to ref. [8].

The stiffness matrix can be integrated through the thickness h of the panel to obtain the
extensional, coupling and bending stiffness matrices as follows

[A ] = ∑ [Q]j (z j − z j-1 )
N
(3a)
j=1

[C] = 1 ∑ [Q]j (z 2j − z 2j-1 )

N
(3b)
2 j=1

[D] = 1 ∑ [Q]j (z 3j − z 3j-1 )

N
(3c)
3 j=1

where zj are the ply coordinates [8] and N= 3, 5, 7. These stiffness matrices in turn can
be combined with the strain-displacement matrix [B], which connects the
displacements to the strains and curvatures of the element, to form the element
stiffness matrix [k] as follows

5
 [k ] = ∫ ([B0 ]T [A][B0 ] + [B0 ]T [C][B1 ] + [B1 ]T [C][B0 ] + [B1 ]T [D][B1 ]) dA (4)
A

where [B0]+z[B1] = [B], see e.g. [16]. The element stiffness matrices are subsequently
assembled to a global stiffness matrix [K], which is used in an eigenvalue analysis of
the finite element model to determine a suitable load step for the non-linear analysis.
The following equation is solved in the eigenvalue analysis

([K ] + χ [S]ref ){ψ } = {0} (5)

where S ref is obtained by applying consistent nodal forces {P}ref on the top and bottom
edges corresponding to a uniform unit pressure, and performing a static linear analysis
to obtain the membrane stresses that generate the "stress stiffness matrix" S [16]. χ ref
is the factor used to multiply the loads that generate the stresses, and {ψ } is the
generalised displacement vector for the nodes [16]. The load {P} is scaled by the factor
χ which also alters the intensity of the membrane stresses but not the distribution of the
stresses such that

{P} = χ {P}ref ⇔ [S] = χ [S]ref (6)

As χ is increased, the overall stiffness of the box, ([Κ] + [S]), is reduced until a critical
load {P}cr corresponding to the eigenvalue χcr is reached and the box becomes
unstable, i.e. det([Κ] + [S]) goes to zero.

The panels collapse at a load much higher than the critical buckling load Pcr. In this so-
called postbuckled state, the deflection of a panel is large enough to introduce
geometric non-linearities between the load and displacement of the panel. This means
that the stiffness matrix [Κ] of the box becomes a function of the unknown
displacements, i.e.

[K (ψ )]{ψ } = {P} (7)

where {ψ } is a set of known and unknown nodal displacements and {P} represents a
set of external loads that act on the nodes. In order for the finite element model of the
box to exhibit out-of-plane deformation, it must contain an imperfection, which in our
case is introduced as an eccentricity of the applied loads [7] simulated by introducing a
moment that is proportional to the load at the top and bottom edges using element
COMBIN37. The nonlinear problem is solved step-wise using the Newton-Raphson
method [15, 16]. The general algorithm proceeds as follows [5].

1. Prescribe known displacements {ψ k }i of the nodes on the edges parallel to the y-

axis, in this case a uniform displacement. The superscript k denotes known dis-
placements and the subscript i is the load step.
2. Compute the unknown forces {P}i and displacements {ψ u }i using the stiffness
matrix from the earlier step K i-1 (For the first step, i = 1, the global stiffness
matrix of the un-deformed panel is used K 0 ).

6
 [K ] ({ψ } + {ψ } ) = {P}
i -1
k
i
u
i i

3. Compute the updated stiffness matrix K i corresponding to the configuration

{ψ k }i + {ψ u }i .
4. Calculate restoring force {P r }i and the change in displacements {∆ψ }i as follows
[K ]i ({ψ k }i + {ψ u }i + {∆ψ }i ) = {P}i + {P r }i .
5. Convergence is checked by Max {∆ψ }i ≤ c where c is an arbitrary small number
for which equilibrium is approximately obtained.
6. If the solution is not converged, add {∆ψ }i to {ψ u }i , add {P r }i to {P}i and repeat
steps 3 - 5.
7. If the solution is converged continue with the next load step
{ψ k }i +1 = {ψ k }i + {ψ u }i + {∆ψ }i + {∆ψ k }i+1 .
The loading is terminated when the stress-state at any point in the facings of the panels
exceeds a predefined failure criterion.

Failure criterion

In this study the Tsai-Wu tensor failure theory [13] is used to obtain the ultimate load-
carrying capacity of a box. According to this theory, in the plane stress condition,
material failure develops when f=1, where

f = Γ1σ x + Γ2σ y + Γ11σ x2 + Γ22σ y2 + Γ66τ xy2 + 2Γ12σ xσ y (8)

1 1 1 1
where Γ11 = − , Γ22 = − , Γ12 = − 0.36 F11F22 , Γ1 = + ,
σ x,tσ x,c σ y,tσ y,c σ x,t σ x,c
1 1 1
Γ2 = + , Γ66 =
σ y,t σ y,c σ x,cσ y,c

The subscript j=t or j=c of strength σi,j ,i=x,y, denotes the strength in tension and
compression, respectively. The expressions for Γ12 and Γ66 are approximations for
paper materials [13]. It is assumed that the box fails as soon as this failure criterion is
fulfilled in any point of the outer facings of the corrugated board.

EVALUATION OF MODEL

Boxes of different sizes and board grades, B-140T/112R/140T, C-140T/112R/140T, C-

140K/112R/140K and C-180L/112R/180L were studied. The corrugated board is
coded, the first letter indicates the geometry of the core, see Table 2. The three
following sets of a number and a letter indicate the liner and fluting composition of the
board, see Table 1. Material data for the liners and fluting, measured according to the
Scandinavian pulp, paper and board standard SCAN-P 67:93 and SCAN-P 46:83, is
shown in Table 1 and geometry of the corrugated cores in Table 2. Observe that the
compression strength is assumed to be 0.78*SCT (Short-span Compression Test) due
to the small specimen size used in the SCT [17]. The finite element models do not

7
include any imperfections. Instead, eccentricity moments are introduced at the top and
bottom edges.

Evaluation of the element density requirements

When performing a finite element analysis the chosen number of elements is a balance
between accuracy and calculation time. A larger number of elements could give a more
precise solution, but the calculation time increases dramatically with the number of
elements. In order to check the influence of element size on the calculated failure load,
finite element solutions were generated for boxes with a size of 300x300x300 mm
(LengthxWidthxHeight). Eccentricity moments bending the panels outward, obtained
in Ref. [7] as the residual after folding the flaps, are introduced at the top and bottom
edges with 0.6 Nmm/mm for B-140T/112R/140T and C-180L/112R/180L. Stiffness of
the creases is 20.0 (N/mm)/mm for both boards. As can be seen in Table 3, the number
of elements has little influence on the box strength estimates. The largest difference is
for the 16 element B-140T/112R/140T box, suggesting that the element size is more
important for light and thin board grades than for heavy and thick board grades. Figure
4 shows the effect of element size on the Tsai-Wu failure criterion f , eq.(16), where 16
elements give too low precision. So generally, 16 elements seem to be too few but 64
elements and upwards give good accuracy for both B- and C-flute.

Table 1. Material data for liners and flutings (Compression strength is 0.78*SCT and
stiffness in compression is set equal to stiffness in tension)
140 T Testliner 3 Avg Sd n 180 L Testliner 2 Avg Sd n
Grammage (g/m2) 136 0.9 30 Grammage (g/m2) 178 1.3 30
Thickness (µm) 225 8.1 30 Thickness (µm) 283 9.5 30
Tensile stiff MD (kN/m) 830 18 10 Tensile stiff MD (kN/m) 1190 18 10
Tensile stiff CD (kN/m) 460 10 10 Tensile stiff CD (kN/m) 550 15 10
Tensile str MD (kN/m) 6.4 0.71 10 Tensile str MD (kN/m) 9.97 0.98 10
Tensile str CD (kN/m) 3.8 0.43 10 Tensile str CD (kN/m) 4.63 0.54 10
SCT MD (kN/m) 3.3 0.22 10 SCT MD (kN/m) 4.98 0.21 10
SCT CD (kN/m) 2.4 0.18 10 SCT CD (kN/m) 3.29 0.16 10

140 K Kraftliner Avg Sd n 112 R Recycled fluting Avg Sd n

Grammage (g/m2) 139 1.2 30 Grammage (g/m2) 114 0.87 30
Thickness (µm) 195 5.8 30 Thickness (µm) 199 8.2 30
Tensile stiff MD (kN/m) 1390 23 10 Tensile stiff MD (kN/m) 911 19 10
Tensile stiff CD (kN/m) 490 21 10 Tensile stiff CD (kN/m) 354 13 10
Tensile str MD (kN/m) 14.0 0.31 10 Tensile str MD (kN/m) 7.32 0.26 10
Tensile str CD (kN/m) 5.3 0.24 10 Tensile str CD (kN/m) 2.9 0.16 10
SCT MD (kN/m) 5.1 0.12 10 SCT MD (kN/m) 3.8 0.16 10
SCT CD (kN/m) 2.7 0.08 10 SCT CD (kN/m) 2.12 0.12 10

8
Table 2. Flute profiles. α is the ratio of flute to liner length.

Profile B C
Wavelength, λ (mm) 6.3 7.8
Flute height, hc (mm) 2.46 3.61
Take-up factor, α 1.32 1.43

Table 3. Failure load (N) of the whole box versus number of elements.

300x300x300 mm, C-180L/112R/180L

No. of elements FEM (N) Index
16 4768 1.04
36 4631 1.01
64 4630 1.01
144 4605 1.00
256 4590 1.00

300x300x300 mm, B-140T/112R/140T

No. of elements FEM (N) Index
16 2516 1.15
36 2275 1.04
64 2188 1.00
144 2181 1.00
256 2165 0.99

Figure 4. Tsai-Wu value f of the inner facings, eq.(16), for the 300x300x300 mm box,
B-140T/112R/140T with 16 and 144 elements respectively.

Evaluation of Tsai-Wu failure criterion vs. compression load

The collapse load of boxes size 300x300x100 mm and 300x300x300 mm is predicted

using the Tsai-Wu failure criterion, eq. (8). Eccentricity moments bending the panels
outward are introduced at the top and bottom edges with 0.6 Nmm/mm for C-

9
140T/112R/140T. Crease stiffness is 20 (N/mm)/mm. In order to make the analyses
converge within reasonable time, a Tsai-Wu value between f = 0.95 and f = 1.05 is
used. Typically, the maximum difference in strength predictions between f = 0.95 and f
= 1.05 is within 4%. However, when small differences between subsequent predictions
need to be studied a more accurate prediction is necessary. Figures 5 and 6 show
typical load vs. Tsai-Wu curves and the load vs. out-of-plane displacements. Since
there is almost a linear relationship between the Tsai-Wu value and the load in Figures
5 and 6, the result from the FEM-calculation, Pi , can be adjusted using the present and
previous Tsai-Wu value, fi and fi-1 and load step ∆P to obtain the failure load.

∆P
Pf = (1 − f i ) + Pi (9)
f i − f i −1

The box strength estimated using eq. (9) is Pf = 3052 N for C-140T/112R/140T,
300x300x300mm and Pf = 4873 N for C-140T/112R/140T, 300x300x100mm. For the
boxes in chapter 4 ( Appendix Table A1 and A2) the maximum correction with eq. (9)
is 2.9% and the average correction is 1.2%.

out-of-plane displacement panel center (mm)

350 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

300

250
Load, P (N)

200
Tsai-Wu
150 out-of-plane

100

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tsai-Wu, f

Figure 5. Load vs. Tsai-Wu value f and out-of-plane displacement for C-

140T/112R/140T, 300x300x300mm. Pf = 3052 N. Since eccentricity
moments bending the panels outward are introduced at the top and bottom
edges, the Tsai-Wu value and out-of-plane displacement are not zero at zero
load.

10
 A out-of-plane displacement panel center (mm)

500 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

450

400

350

Load, P (N)
300
Tsai-Wu
250

200 out-of-plane

150

100

500

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Tsai-Wu, f

Figure 6. Load vs. Tsai-Wu value f and out-of-plane displacement for C-

140T/112R/140T, 300x300x100mm. Pf = 4930 N.

Additional failure criterion

If boxes do not buckle, failure load is limited by the crushing strength of the corrugated
board, see Figure 7. The crushing strength of the creased corrugated board is about
50% of the edge crush test strength (ECT) [7], and the ECT can be predicted from the
short-span compression test (SCT) of the board constituents [17]. Thus the crushing
strength per unit length of the creased corrugated board, CBS, in the CD, see Figure 7,
is

0.85  M 
CBS =  0.78SCT1 + ∑ 0.78(α 2k SCT2k + SCT2 k +1 ) (10)
2  k =1 

where α2k is the take-up factor of the corrugated core layer 2k and when M = 1, 2, 3 it
corresponds to single, double or triple-wall board, see Figure 1. For board C-
140T/112R/140T CBS = 2.59 N/mm. In chapter 3.2 the crushing strength of box no.1
C-140T/112R/140T, 300x300x100mm, see Appendix Table A2, is Pcrush = 3108 N and
corresponding experimental value is Pf,exp = 2932 N. Pcrush = 3823 N and Pf,exp = 3290
N for box no.13 C-180L/112R/180L, 300x300x100mm, see Appendix Table A2.

Figure 7. A crushed shallow box.

11
Influence of the edge stiffness

The edge/crease stiffness is an important property for box compression strength

because it affects the load distribution on the top and bottom edges when the side
panels buckle. Thus, a soft edge prevents a redistribution of the load towards the
corners of a box during buckling. This increases the bending of the panels and reduces
box strength. Edge/crease stiffness can be measured by using a special rig [7]. Figures
8a and 8b show the predicted failure load as a function of the edge stiffness for a box
with B- and C-board, respectively. The predicted failure load increases rapidly with
stiffness until stiffness gets close to the stiffness of a cut-edge. For the B-flute box the
strength increases by about 16% between stiffness 2 and 100, whereas for C-flute the
increase is about 8%.

3150

3100
108
Failure load Pf, (N)

3050
106
FEM (N)

3000

2950

2900

100
2850
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Edge stiffness (N/mm²)

Figure 8a. Predicted failure load for B-140T/112R/140T, 300x300x300 mm. An index
is included for stiffness 2.0, 20.0 and 100 (N/mm)/mm.

2300

2250 116
Failure load Pf, (N)

2200
112
FEM (N)

2150

2100

2050

2000

100
1950
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Edge stiffness (N/mm²)

Figure 8b. Predicted failure load for C-140T/112R/140T, 300x300x300 mm. An

failure index is included for stiffness 2, 20 and 100 (N/mm)/mm.

12
Influence of eccentricity moments orientation on buckling modes

Applying different eccentricity moments at the loaded edges triggers different buckling
modes. Two alternative moment directions are used corresponding to a panel buckling
direction inwards or outwards, see Figure 9. Results in Table 4 show that outward
moment for all panels clearly gives the strongest box and inward moment gives the
weakest box. Since the panels are completely identical and the value of the moment is
0.6 Nmm/mm in all cases, the difference in strength is only caused by geometrical
differences in the buckling patterns. Displacements of the box corners in particular will
be different, see Figure 10.

in out

Figure 9. Applied eccentricity moments.

Table 4. Boxes size 300x300x300 mm and symmetrical board C-140K/112R/140K

Driving moment Failure load, N Index Buckling

all out 3942.9 100 all out
all in 3565.8 90 all in
2 out/2 in 3673.5 93 2 out/2 in
3 out/1 in 3671.8 93 3 out/1 in
3 in/1 out 3566.3 90 3 in/1 out

13
 Displacement of the corners (mm)
-0.21
-0.16
7.2

-0.18 -0.22

-7.9

Out-of-plane displacement
at panel centre (mm)

7.0 -6.9

Figure 10. Schematics of deformed corner cross-sections at the centre of the box. The
dot-dashed lines indicate original position of the corners. The schematics
are not drawn to scale. The three first buckling modes in Table 4 are shown
at index load 90.

If the ratio between height and width of the panels is different panels can buckle in
completely different ways, see Figure 11.

1/4 model 1/4 model

300x300x300 400x200x300

Figure 11. Tsai-Wu value f of the inner facings, eq.(16). Different buckling modes of
boxes with the same perimeter.

14
EXPERIMENTS AND VERIFICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Boxes made from board with either a B-flute or a C-flute profile, see Table 2, have
been tested to verify the finite element model. About fifty different box geometries for
each flute profile and a total of 1,316 boxes were tested. All boxes were unprinted and
manually creased, slotted, glued and erected. All boxes were conditioned at 23°C and
at 50% RH for at least 24 hours. Some of the tests were performed at SCA Packaging
Munksund with a rigid platen box compression tester, and some at SCA Packaging
Research, Aylesford, with a floating platen (rotational unrestrained) box compression
tester. Compression speed was 10 mm per minute and time to failure was about one
minute.

Specifications, box compression test (BCT) results and FEM estimates of the tested
boxes are listed in Table A1 and Table A2 in the Appendix together with material data
for the liners and mediums in Table A3. All predicted strengths are based on an edge
stiffness of 2 N/mm2 and an element density of 144 elements. Moment applied at the
loaded edges is 0.6 Nmm/mm [7] in the conservative configuration in/out, see Table 4.

Figures 12 and 13 show comparisons between box strength estimated with FEM and
the strength of tested handmade boxes according to Table A1 and A2, respectively. On
average, the finite element simulation predicted strength 3 % above the tested average
of boxes in Figure 12 and 5 % below average of boxes in Figure 13. However, two of
the tested boxes in Figure 13 (box no.1 and 13) have a strength that is significantly less
than predicted. These boxes are shallow, which makes them less inclined to buckle and
they fail due to crushing instead, see chapter 3.3. No explanation has yet been found
for the over-conservative predictions for box geometries Nos. 29, 30 and 49.

5000
Box Compression Strength (N)

4500

4000

3500
Test
3000
FEM

2500

2000

1500

1000 0 20 30 40
10 50
Box geometry no.

Figure 12. FEM-estimate box strength compared to test results for a range of
handmade boxes according to Table A1. Flute profile B, see Table 2.

15
 7000

6000

Compression Strength (N)

5000

4000 Test

FEM
3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Box geometry no.

Figure 13. FEM-estimate box strength compared to test results for a range of
handmade boxes according to Table A2. Flute profile C, see Table 2.

CONCLUSIONS AND REMARKS

A finite element model of corrugated board containers is shown to predict the failure
load of boxes, made from B- and C-board, within an average error margin of 5%.
Effective material properties of the homogenised corrugated cores have been used, and
each layer of the corrugated board is assumed to be orthotropic linear elastic. It is
shown that convergence is obtained with relatively few elements, e.g. 64 elements are
quite sufficient for a regular size box, i.e. 300x300x300 mm. The edge stiffness has a
significant influence on the predicted failure loads because it affects the load
distribution on the top and bottom edges when the side panels buckle. There is also a
variation of about 10% in the failure load due to different buckling modes, see Table 3.
This is attributed to different constraints imposed on the side panels by the corners of a
box. Boxes of different sizes and board grades were tested and compared to predicted
strengths. On average, the difference between experimental and predicted values was
small. However, for some boxes the difference was significant because the boxes did
not buckle but were crushed instead.

The described FE-method for predicting the top-to-bottom compressive strength of

corrugated containers has been used as the basic component in the subsequent develop-
ment of a user-friendly computer-based tool for strength design of containers. The
graphical interface of this design tool is shown in Figure 14. The example shows
menus that relate to input data definition.

16
Figure 14. The graphical interface of a design tool for corrugated boxes.

REFERENCES

1. R. Steadman, "Corrugated Board", Ch. 11, in Handbook of Physical Testing of

Paper, (R.E. Mark et al. eds.), pp. 563-660, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2002.

2. B. Steenberg, J. Kubat, S. Martin-Löf and L. Rudström, "Competition in Rigid

Packaging materials", Svensk Papperstidning., Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 77-92, 1970.

3. T. Nordstrand, "Parametrical Study of the Post-buckling Strength of Structural

Core Sandwich Panels", Composite Structures, No. 30, pp. 441-451, 1995.

4. R. C. McKee and J. W. Gander, "Top-Load Compression", TAPPI, Vol. 40, No. 1,

pp. 57-64, 1957.

5. ANSYS User's Manual, Swanson Analysis Systems Inc., Vol.1-2, 1989.

6. O. C. Zienkiewicz, " The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science",

McGraw-Hill, 1971.

7. M. Renman, "A mechanical characterization of creased zones of corrugated

board", Licentiate thesis, Department of Engineering Logistics, Lund University,
Sweden, 1994.

17
8. L. A. Carlsson, T. Nordstrand and B. Westerlind, "On the Elastic Stiffnesses of
Corrugated Core Sandwich", Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, Vol.
3, pp. 253-267, Oct., 2001.

9. C. Libove and R. E. Hubka, "Elastic Constants for Corrugated Core Sandwich

Plates", NACA TN 2289, 1951.

10. R. Paetow and L. Göttsching , " Poisson's Ratio of Paper", Das Papier a. (in
German), Vol. 6, pp. 229-237, 1990.

11. T. Nordstrand and L.A. Carlsson, "Evaluation of Transverse Shear Stiffness of

Structural Core Sandwich Plates", Composite Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 145-153,
1997.

12. T. Nordstrand, "Analysis and Testing of Corrugated Board Panels into the Post-
buckling Regime", To be submitted to Composite Structures.

13. C. Fellers, B.S. Westerlind and A. de Ruvo, "An Investigation of the Biaxial
Failure of Paper: Experimental Study and Theoretical Analysis", Transaction of
the Symposium held at Cambridge: September 1981, Vol. 1, pp 527-559, 1983.

14. P. Patel, T. Nordstrand and L.A. Carlsson, “A Study on the Influence of Local
Buckling on the Strength of Structural Core Sandwich Structures", Multiaxial
Fatique and Deformation Testing Techniques, ASTM STP, Vol. 1280, ed. S.
Kalluri and P. J. Bonacuse, pp. 264-289, 1997.

15. A. N. Palazotto and S. T. Dennis, "Nonlinear Analysis of Shell Structures", AIAA

Education Series, pp. 116 - 154, 1992.

16. R. D. Cock, D. S. Malkus and M. E. Plesha, "Concepts and Applications of Finite

Element Analysis", John Wiley & Sons, 1989.

17. B. S. Westerlind and L. A. Carlsson, "Compressive Response of Corrugated

Board", TAPPI, 75 (7), pp. 145-154, 1992.

18
Appendix

Table A1. Specifications, test results and FEM-estimates for handmade B-flute boxes,
COV was about 5 % for all tested boxes.
Box no. Length Width Height Flute Board grade no. of Mean BCT FEM BCT/FEM
samples
(mm) (mm) (mm) (N) (N)
1 200 150 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1801 1794 1.004
2 300 225 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1939 1908 1.015
3 350 350 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 2072 1942 1.066
4 400 300 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 2020 1881 1.074
5 400 300 200 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1924 1824 1.054
6 400 300 400 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1820 1892 0.962
7 400 300 600 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1839 1915 0.960
8 400 300 800 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 2042 1950. 1.047
9 450 250 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1842 1850. 0.996
10 500 200 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1646 1723 0.955
11 535 400 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1931 1964 0.983
12 550 150 300 B 125MK/150RF/125T 6 1631 1554 1.049
13 300 300 100 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 2216 2543 0.871
14 300 300 200 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 1794 1866 0.962
15 300 300 300 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 1981 1954 1.013
16 300 300 450 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 1657 1959 0.846
17 300 300 600 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 1657 1975 0.839
18 400 400 400 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 2148 1953 1.099
19 500 300 400 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 2040 1903 1.072
20 600 200 400 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 1893 1771 1.069
21 600 200 300 B 140T/112RF/140T 10 1863 1815 1.026
22 300 300 100 B 180L/112RF/180L 20 2703 3229 0.837
23 300 300 200 B 180L/112RF/180L 20 2702 2493 1.084
24 300 300 300 B 180L/112RF/180L 20 2567 2629 0.976
25 300 300 450 B 180L/112RF/180L 20 2301 2608 0.882
26 300 300 600 B 180L/112RF/180L 19 2370 2656 0.892
27 400 400 400 B 180L/112RF/180L 20 2597 2606 0.997
28 400 400 600 B 180L/112RF/180L 17 2377 2642 0.899
29 400 400 133 B 180L/112RF/180L 20 2754 2675 1.029
30 375 250 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 3020 2670 1.131
31 420 280 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 2471 2595 0.952
32 450 300 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 2618 2608 1.003
33 480 320 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 2785 2635 1.057
34 510 340 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 3118 2710 1.151
35 540 360 200 B 186K/112RF/200T 9 2726 2697 1.011
36 540 360 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 2540 2743 0.926
37 540 360 600 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 2824 2782 1.015
38 570 380 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 3158 2740 1.152
39 590 390 400 B 186K/112RF/200T 10 2805 2740 1.024
40 300 300 100 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2716 2839 0.956
41 300 300 200 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2657 2425 1.096
42 300 300 300 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2795 2694 1.037
43 300 300 450 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2569 2625 0.979
44 300 300 600 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2481 2722 0.911
45 400 400 400 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 3109 2887 1.077
46 500 300 400 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 3442 2479 1.388
47 600 200 400 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2932 2251 1.302
48 600 200 300 B 186K/150RF/180T 10 2893 2234 1.295
49 400 400 400 B 280K/150RF/280K 19 4762 4240 1.123
50 500 300 400 B 280K/150RF/280K 20 4866 3814 1.276
51 600 200 400 B 280K/150RF/280K 20 3987 3378 1.180
Total 566 Mean 1.0314
CV % 11.4

19
Appendix

Table A2. Specifications, test results and FEM-estimates for handmade C-flute boxes,
COV was about 5 % for all tested boxes.
Box no. Length Width Height Flute Board grade no. of Mean BCT FEM BCT/FEM
samples
(mm) (mm) (mm) (N) (N)
1 300 300 100 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2932 4931 0.595
2 300 300 200 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2177 2597 0.838
3 300 300 300 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2187 2873 0.761
4 300 300 450 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2138 2857 0.748
5 300 300 600 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2118 2947 0.719
6 300 300 150 C 140T/112RF/140T 30 2546 2932 0.868
7 300 300 300 C 140T/112RF/140T 30 2411 2873 0.839
8 300 300 450 C 140T/112RF/140T 30 2246 2857 0.786
9 400 400 400 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2540 2812 0.903
10 500 300 400 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2442 2685 0.909
11 600 200 400 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2324 2368 0.981
12 600 200 300 C 140T/112RF/140T 10 2226 2385 0.933
13 300 300 100 C 180L/112RF/180L 20 3290 6113 0.538
14 300 300 200 C 180L/112RF/180L 19 2996 3481 0.861
15 300 300 300 C 180L/112RF/180L 20 3168 3844 0.824
16 300 300 450 C 180L/112RF/180L 20 2806 3807 0.737
17 300 300 600 C 180L/112RF/180L 20 2889 3928 0.735
18 400 400 400 C 180L/112RF/180L 20 3417 3738 0.914
19 400 400 600 C 180L/112RF/180L 19 3178 3720 0.854
20 400 400 133 C 180L/112RF/180L 20 4134 4762 0.868
21 400 400 400 C 186K/112RF/180T 19 3488 3701 0.942
22 500 300 400 C 186K/112RF/180T 20 3289 3369 0.976
23 600 200 400 C 186K/112RF/180T 19 2929 2906 1.008
24 375 250 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 3275 3775 0.867
25 395 260 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 3265 3750 0.871
26 420 280 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 3403 3746 0.908
27 450 300 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 9 3805 3720 1.023
28 480 320 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 3913 3735 1.048
29 510 340 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 3971 2764 1.437
30 540 360 200 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 4638 3197 1.451
31 540 360 600 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 3775 3904 0.967
32 540 360 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 20 4011 3807 1.053
33 570 380 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 4226 3835 1.102
34 590 390 400 C 186K/112RF/200T 10 4324 3841 1.126
35 300 300 300 C 186K/150RF/180T 29 3606 4170 0.865
36 300 300 100 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 4423 4959 0.892
37 300 300 200 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3707 3542 1.046
38 300 300 300 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3373 4170 0.809
39 300 300 450 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3285 3818 0.860
40 300 300 600 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3167 3904 0.811
41 360 240 300 C 186K/150RF/180T 30 3730 3393 1.099
42 400 200 300 C 186K/150RF/180T 29 3545 3026 1.172
43 400 400 400 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3864 3846 1.005
44 500 300 400 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 4030 3491 1.155
45 600 200 400 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3462 3002 1.153
46 600 200 300 C 186K/150RF/180T 10 3275 2945 1.112
47 400 400 400 C 280K/150RF/280K 19 6596 6097 1.082
48 500 300 400 C 280K/150RF/280K 20 6315 5306 1.190
49 600 200 400 C 280K/150RF/280K 18 5811 4465 1.301
Total 750 Mean 0.950
CV % 19.6

20
Appendix

Table A3. Material data for liners and flutings.

125 Testliner 186 Kraftliner
Grammage (g/m 2 ) 121 Grammage (g/m 2 ) 182
Thickness (µm) 200 Thickness (µm) 223
Tensile stiffness MD (M N/m) 0.968 Tensile stiffness M D (M N/m) 1.681
Tensile stiffness CD (MN/m) 0.363 Tensile stiffness CD (M N/m) 0.614
Tensile strength MD (kN/m) 7.744 Tensile strength M D (kN/m) 16.59
Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 2.783 Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 7.05
SCT MD (kN/m) 3.509 SCT M D (kN/m) 6.07
SCT CD (kN/m) 1.815 SCT CD (kN/m) 3.51

125 Kraftliner 200 Testliner

Grammage (g/m 2 ) 125 Grammage (g/m 2 ) 200
Thickness (µm) 164 Thickness (µm) 315
Tensile stiffness MD (M N/m) 1.374 Tensile stiffness M D (M N/m) 1.537
Tensile stiffness CD (MN/m) 0.503 Tensile stiffness CD (M N/m) 0.501
Tensile strength MD (kN/m) 12.8 Tensile strength M D (kN/m) 12.34
Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 4.15 Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 4.24
SCT MD (kN/m) 4.74 SCT M D (kN/m) 5.68
SCT CD (kN/m) 2.53 SCT CD (kN/m) 3.16

140 Testliner 280 Kraftliner

Grammage (g/m 2 ) 136 Grammage (g/m 2 ) 280
Thickness (µm) 225 Thickness (µm) 338
Tensile stiffness MD (M N/m) 0.83 Tensile stiffness M D (M N/m) 2.376
Tensile stiffness CD (MN/m) 0.46 Tensile stiffness CD (M N/m) 0.875
Tensile strength MD (kN/m) 6.4 Tensile strength M D (kN/m) 23.8
Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 3.8 Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 9.76
SCT MD (kN/m) 3.33 SCT M D (kN/m) 8.65
SCT CD (kN/m) 2.38 SCT CD (kN/m) 5.06

140 Kraftliner 112 Recycled fibre fluting

Grammage (g/m 2 ) 139 Grammage (g/m 2 ) 114
Thickness (µm) 195 Thickness (µm) 199
Tensile stiffness MD (M N/m) 1.39 Tensile stiffness M D (M N/m) 0.911
Tensile stiffness CD (MN/m) 0.49 Tensile stiffness CD (M N/m) 0.354
Tensile strength MD (kN/m) 14.0 Tensile strength M D (kN/m) 7.32
Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 5.3 Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 2.9
SCT MD (kN/m) 5.1 SCT M D (kN/m) 3.8
SCT CD (kN/m) 2.7 SCT CD (kN/m) 2.12

180 Testliner (L) 150 Recycled fibre fluting

Grammage (g/m 2 ) 178 Grammage (g/m 2 ) 151
Thickness (µm) 283 Thickness (µm) 231
Tensile stiffness MD (M N/m) 1.19 Tensile stiffness M D (M N/m) 1.142
Tensile stiffness CD (MN/m) 0.55 Tensile stiffness CD (M N/m) 0.449
Tensile strength MD (kN/m) 9.97 Tensile strength M D (kN/m) 8.95
Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 4.63 Tensile strength CD (kN/m) 3.45
SCT MD (kN/m) 4.98 SCT M D (kN/m) 4.82
SCT CD (kN/m) 3.29 SCT CD (kN/m) 2.76

21
Detta är en tom sida!