day express” shipping through multiple destinations in Europe.

The obtained data gives a picture of

the typical impacts seen during a shipment. Ref: Figures 1 and 2

Figure 1 – Location of Impacts

Figure 2 – Type of Impacts

When the field data is brought into the laboratory, an attempt is made to determine a “rational” drop
height and impact orientation for the package. Most studies attempt to determine the drop height
above which less than 1% of impacts will occur. This is the normal “target value” and the drop height
chosen is normally referred to as the “design drop height”. This is the value used to determine the
amount and thickness of cushion placed around a fragile product to help guarantee successful delivery
more than 99% of the time. In this manner, the drop height used to test the packaged product in the
laboratory is fixed from the field data.

It is the orientation of the impact(s) that causes some consternation when translating this data into a
test specification. Since the base down orientation tends to be more predominant in the field data, this
orientation is almost always selected for laboratory testing. If a packaged product is more sensitive in

3 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com

 restitution of a cushioned package will likely vary depending on its orientation and it may vary a
significant amount depending on whether or not the impact is flat, predominantly on the corner of the
package, or predominantly on an edge. Again, with some diligent laboratory work, an average
coefficient of restitution can be established that will accurately display drop height data within a
reasonable tolerance.

Figure 3 – Coefficient of Restitution Visualized

When reviewing field data of drop heights experienced by package systems, it becomes apparent that
the mass or weight of a package has an influence on the data. The theory is that impacts during
distribution are primarily a function of manual handling which is largely a people-related function. Since
people don’t like to pick up heavy objects very high, it is assumed that heavier packages will experience
lower drop heights. Some studies have shown that there may be a problem with this assumption.
However, it can be safely assumed that once a package system exceeds perhaps 65 kg (150 lb.),
most of the impact data will occur by means of mechanical handling including forklift handling, diverter
plates in sorting facilities, or similar. In addition, environmental studies from developing countries show
that a relatively common method of moving larger package systems involves rolling the package end
over end or side over side using a number of individuals in order to achieve the desired result. Also,
package systems tossed off the end of a truck or those that fall from a material handling vehicle will
likely experience random orientations of the impacts at a higher level than would be dictated by the
weight of the package system itself.

5 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com

 Figure 4 –Rolling of heavy packages and improper handling can be observed
in the distribution environment

Data Analysis

Once the data is collected, it will normally be assembled into a format that is easier to use in the
laboratory for package design and testing purposes. The first thing that is apparent is that the data
must be analyzed for each individual trip separately. That is to say for any one shipment cycle, a single
design drop height data point above which 1% of the data exists is determined. Simply amassing a
large number of data points from multiple shipments will result in erroneous conclusions. Thus, the
data for each shipment should result in a single “three sigma” data point, that is, the drop height above
which less than 1% of the impacts occurred for that shipment. Three sigma data points can then be
averaged or in another way assembled to produce a “mean 99% drop height” which becomes the
“design drop height” for the package system as well as the test drop height for package performance
evaluation.

Figure 5 – In-lab Drop Test

6 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com

 The data collected in this manner will often show a near linear relationship between the drop height
experienced and the weight of the package system. While the volume or cube of the package system
may also have some significance in terms of the experienced drop height, this relationship is not as
distinct as that between weight and drop height. Most studies also conclude that labels on packages
such as “Fragile Handle With care”, or “This Side Up” have little influence on either the drop height or
the impact orientations experienced.

Figure 6 –Drop Height vs. Package Weight

Package Test Specification Development

After the drop height of the package is well established, (likely based primarily on the package weight),
several factors must be taken into consideration. The fragility of the product, its sensitivity to various
orientations, and the overall size of the package system are all important factors in determining the test
specification. The only unresolved item remaining is the number and orientations of the impacts. Recall
that the environmental data collected normally seeks to identify the drop height above which only 1%
of the impacts occur, the so-called “three sigma” or design drop height. Also recall that this height of
impact normally occurs only once per shipment. Since there is, on average, about a one-third
probability that this impact will occur on the base, the base down orientation is normally chosen as a
beginning point for the test specification. The remainder of the flat package faces (5 remaining faces)
are normally selected for impact tests based on the fact that these other faces may also contain
product identification or shipping information which may result in a default “up” orientation based on
the ability of someone to read that information. In addition, it is thought that the flat orientation of the
package normally constitutes the highest transmitted deceleration level for a given impact level (drop
height). The theory is that all of the energy from a flat impact is dissipated in one axis (primarily)

7 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com

 whereas an impact on a package edge will dissipate the energy in two axes or a corner impact in three
axes.

Figure 7a – Flat Impact – Energy dissipated in one axis

Figure 7b – Edge Impact – Energy dissipated in two axes

Figure 7 – Plots Showing Dissipation of Energy in Various Impact Orientations

8 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com

 Some specifications duplicate this procedure (single corner and 3 radiating edges) on the diagonally
opposite corner of the package system. This will result in a total of 14 impacts on the container (2
corners, 6 edges, and 6 flat faces). Other test protocols are used but by far the most common test
procedure is 10 impacts from the design drop height. In addition, accepted test protocols for drop
testing of a package (such as ASTM D5276) will require that the orientation of a package for flat
impacts be within 2° of flat and that the impact surface be a solid and non-rebounding surface typical
of steel or concrete.

Putting the Final Spec Together

Regardless of the actual specification that results from this analysis, it’s fairly obvious that the test
procedures will result in a substantial over-test of the package system from a design drop height
standpoint as well as an over-test in the quantity and orientation of the impacts. The field data clearly
points out that the package will likely receive only one impact from a design drop height and only 1%
of the time. Yet a typical drop test procedure will require 10 impacts – or more - from the design drop
height in a specified number of orientations. Some of the realizations that can be reached from this
finding are as follows:

Point 1 Most protective package designs are very conservative from an impact standpoint.
Those who claim that we may be wasting large amounts of money on protective packaging that is not
needed may have a good point.

Point 2 The data also suggests - and many others have often pointed out - that shipping to
third world countries will result in a substantially higher number of impacts due to the greater degree
of manual handling experienced in those environments.

Point 3 Evaluation of the results of a package drop test in the laboratory must be evaluated
in light of the substantial over-test potential of most common test specifications for package drop
testing. This is to suggest that a minor amount of damage or non-standard product appearance may
be acceptable in light of the conservative and perhaps even severe nature of the test inputs.

Point 4 Note that the test procedures themselves will tend to favor package cushion designs
with cushions that are rebounding or totally resilient in their format over those that are crushable or
non-rebounding. While the data clearly suggests that these cushion designs might be perfectly
acceptable in the distribution environment, the test procedures with multiple impacts will likely be less
favorable toward non-rebounding cushion designs. Since resilient package cushion designs tend to

10 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com

 be more expensive, the test procedures can be viewed as building in more expensive package
systems.

Conclusion

It has been shown that the nature of the package test specifications, especially in terms of the
orientations and number of impacts, is conservative by its nature and will likely lead to more expensive
and over-designed package systems from a shock mitigation standpoint. Where multiple impacts on
a product-package system are desired for a package drop test sequence (and the authors certainly
believe that that is the case), perhaps these additional impacts should be conducted using a fresh
package system for each orientation. It may also be feasible to use one package for several drop
orientations where a crushable package system, for example, will still offer adequate protection. In this
manner, a fresh package impact orientation could be maintained with as little as 3 or 4 package
prototypes during the test protocol in the laboratory.

Substantial improvement in package optimization and reduction in package cost – along with better
sustainability overall – can be anticipated if and when this topic comes under more scrutiny by package
test specification writers.

Bibliography

Forest Products Laboratory, "An Assessment of the Common Carrier Shipping Environment," General
Technical Report FPL 22, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison WI, 1979

Kipp, Bill and Russell, Paul, “European Express Shipping Drop/Impact Study” ISTA Dimensions.’06

11 Testing. Ownership. Integrity. westpak.com