This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles

for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

Designation: F88/F88M − 23

Standard Test Method for

Seal Strength of Flexible Barrier Materials1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation F88/F88M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope 2. Referenced Documents

1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the strength 2.1 ASTM Standards:2
of seals in flexible barrier materials. D882 Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic
Sheeting
1.2 The test may be conducted on seals between a flexible D883 Terminology Relating to Plastics
material and another flexible material, a rigid material, or a E171 Practice for Conditioning and Testing Flexible Barrier
semi-rigid material. Packaging
E177 Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in
1.3 Seals tested in accordance with this test method may be
ASTM Test Methods
from any source, laboratory or commercial.
E691 Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to
1.4 This test method measures the force required to separate Determine the Precision of a Test Method
a test strip of material containing the seal. It also identifies the F17 Terminology Relating to Primary Barrier Packaging
mode of specimen failure. F2824 Test Method for Mechanical Seal Strength Testing for

iTeh Standards
1.5 This test method differs from Test Method F2824. Test
Method F2824 measures mechanical seal strength while sepa-
Round Cups and Bowl Containers with Flexible Peelable
Lids
F3263 Guide for Packaging Test Method Validation

round container.
(https://standards.iteh.ai)
rating an entire lid (cover/membrane) from a rigid or semi-rigid
3. Terminology

Document
1.6 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units Preview
are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in
3.1 Definitions:
3.1.1 average seal strength, n—average force per unit width
of seal required to fully separate a flexible material from a rigid
each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each
material, semi-rigid material, or another flexible material,
ASTM
system shall be used independently of the other. F88/F88M-23
Combining
under the conditions of the test.
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
values from the two systems may result in non-conformance
3.1.1.1 Discussion—The average force normally is calcu-
with the standard. lated by the testing machine from the digitized plot of force
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the versus grip travel. The plot starts from zero force after slack
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the has been removed from the test strip. The initial ramp-up from
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- zero to the force level required to peel the seal is not indicative
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter- of seal strength, and data from that part of the curve should not
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. be included in the calculation of average strength, nor should
the return to zero following complete failure of the specimen.
1.8 This international standard was developed in accor-
The amount of data actually discarded on each end of the
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
measured seal-profile curve must be the same for all tests
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
within any set of comparisons of average seal strength (see
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
6.1.1 and 9.9.1).
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. 3.1.2 maximum seal strength, n—maximum force per unit
width of seal required to fully separate a flexible material from
a rigid or semi-rigid material, or another flexible material,
under the conditions of the test.
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F02 on Primary
Barrier Packaging and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F02.20 on
2
Physical Properties. For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Current edition approved May 1, 2023. Published August 2023. Originally contact ASTM Customer Service at [email protected]. For Annual Book of ASTM
approved in 1968. Last previous edition approved in 2021 as F88/F88M – 21. DOI: Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
10.1520/F0088_F0088M-23. the ASTM website.

Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States

1
 F88/F88M − 23
3.1.3 flange, n—any geometric feature of a rigid or semi- flipping of the tail throughout the course of the test; this has potential to
rigid component, which provides a counterpart surface to impact the measured strength and should be reported with results.
which a flexible component can form a seal. NOTE 6—Test method validation should account for use of fixtures or
alignment plates, as well as determination of which material is placed into
3.1.4 interferences, n—conditions that may lead to increased which grip as these factors are known to impact results, and feasibility of
variation or challenges in obtaining consistent measurement of each approach may vary depending on design features. Examples of
test samples. optional fixtures and equipment with built in fixturing are included in
Appendix X4 for reference. Refer to Guide F3263 for guidance on test
4. Significance and Use method validation.

4.1 Seal strength is a quantitative measure for use in process 5. Interferences

validation, capability, and control. Seal strength is not only
relevant to opening force and package integrity, but to mea- 5.1 The value obtained for seal strength can be affected by
suring the packaging processes’ ability to produce consistent properties of the specimen other than seal strength. Some
seals. Seal strength at some minimum level is a necessary flexible barrier materials have properties, such as shape and
package requirement, and at times it is also desirable to have an dimension, that may vary or change and need to be taken into
upper limit to the strength of the seal to facilitate opening. consideration when testing for seal strength. Examples include
materials that may stretch (elongation), flexing around the
NOTE 1—Seal strength values are a measurement of the output of the perimeter of a seal flange, or the shape/design of the rigid or
seal separation and may also involve mechanical properties of the
materials that form the seal, given the potential for deformation or semi-rigid material flanges (for example, in a tray), or variation
elongation over the course of the test. This separation is indicative of the in material properties such as caliper. These interferences are
area of the package being sampled and does not take into account discussed in Annex A1.
simulation of a user interfacing with an entire package during the opening
process.
NOTE 2—Lower seal strength specifications are typically utilized to
6. Apparatus
provide assurance of package closure, which can contribute to seal 6.1 Tensile Testing Machine—A testing machine of the
integrity.
constant rate-of-jaw-separation type. The machine shall be
NOTE 3—Upper seal strength specifications are typically utilized to

iTeh Standards
limit the amount of force required to open a package, ensuring that a user equipped with a device for recording the tensile load and the
is able to open the design. Upper seal strength specifications are typically amount of separation of the grips; both of these measuring
limited to seals that are intended to be peeled by the end user. systems shall be accurate to 62 %. The rate of separation of
(https://standards.iteh.ai)
4.1.1 The maximum seal force is important information, but
for some applications, average force to separate the seal may
the jaws shall be uniform and capable of adjustment from
approximately 8 in. to 12 in. [200 mm to 300 mm] ⁄min. The

Document Preview
be useful, and in those cases also should be reported.
4.2 A portion of the force measured when testing materials
gripping system shall be capable of minimizing specimen
slippage and applying an even stress distribution to the
specimen.
may be a bending component and not seal strength alone. A
number of fixtures and techniques have been devised ASTMto F88/F88M-23
hold NOTE 7—If the tensile testing machine utilizes a spring and hook-based
samples at various angles to the pull direction to control this apparatus to extend the sample, it is expected to impart more variation in
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
bending force. Because the effect of each of these on test results as it travels, as compared to modern equipment. When utilizing
spring and hook-based apparatus, it is recommended to take this factor
results is varied, consistent use of one technique (Technique A, into consideration and limit the variation imparted by the weighing system
Technique B, or Technique C) throughout a test series is movement to a maximum distance of 2 % of the specimen extension
recommended. Examples of techniques are illustrated in Fig. 1. within the range being measured.
4.2.1 Technique A: Unsupported—Each tail of the specimen NOTE 8—Impact of jaw-separation rate is discussed in Appendix X3.
is secured in opposing grips and the seal remains unsupported 6.1.1 If calculation of average seal strength is required, the
while the test is being conducted. testing machine system shall have the capability to calculate its
4.2.2 Technique B: Supported 90° (By Hand)—Each tail of value over a specified range of grip travel programmable by the
the specimen is secured in opposing grips and the seal remains operator. Preferably, the machine shall have the capability also
hand-supported at a 90° perpendicular angle to the tails while to plot the curve of force versus grip travel.
the test is being conducted.
6.2 Specimen Cutter, conforming to the requirements of 6.5
NOTE 4—Excessive lateral forces applied via hand may impact results. of Test Method D882, sized to cut specimens to a width of
Actual gripping of samples is not intended and will influence results;
contact is intended to be loose, only preventing tail movement up or down. 0.984 in. [25 mm], 0.591 in. [15 mm], or 1.00 in. [25.4 mm].
4.2.3 Technique C: Supported 180°—For flexible to flexible NOTE 9—Alternate specimen cutting methods and tools may be utilized
applications, the least flexible tail is typically supported flat if deemed appropriate for the application.
against a rigid alignment plate held in one grip. The more NOTE 10—Any deviation from sample tolerance or width shall be
supported through documented rationale and/or supportive data. Recom-
flexible tail is typically folded 180° over the seal and is held in mended tolerance for sample cutting tool is 60.5 %. Sample cutting
the opposing grip while the test is being conducted. method and associated variation that may support to establish alternate
Alternatively, in rigid and semi-rigid applications, the package tolerances may be assessed in validation of the test method; refer to Guide
structure may be maintained for the least flexible side; with this F3263 for test method validation guidance.
structure gripped or fixtured. NOTE 11—Seal strength is proportional to sample width under the same
test conditions. Impact of variation in sample width is discussed in
NOTE 5—Properties of some flexible materials may cause movement or Appendix X3.

2
 F88/F88M − 23

iTeh Standards
(https://standards.iteh.ai)
Document Preview
ASTM F88/F88M-23
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23

Diagram Key
APPLICATION LINE DESCRIPTION
Flexible to Flexible, Rigid, or Semi-Rigid Seal \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Flexible Film or Substrate #1
Flexible to Flexible Seal Flexible Film or Substrate #2
Flexible to Rigid or Semi-Rigid Seal ------------------- Rigid or Semi-Rigid Film or Substrate

FIG. 1 Tail Holding Methods

3
 F88/F88M − 23
7. Sampling 9. Procedure
7.1 The number of test specimens shall be chosen to permit 9.1 Calibrate the tensile machine in accordance with the
an adequate determination of representative performance. manufacturer’s recommendations.
7.2 Testing of samples with visual defects or other devia- 9.2 Prepare sealed test specimens for testing by cutting to
tions from normality may or may not be appropriate depending the dimensions shown in Fig. 2. Edges shall be clean-cut and
on the purpose of the investigation. Indiscriminate elimination perpendicular to the direction of seal. Specimen legs may be
of defects can bias results. shorter than shown, depending on the grip dimensions of the
testing machine, recommended distance between grips, or the
8. Aging and Conditioning size of the package under test. Multiple locations around the
8.1 If conditioning before testing is desired and appropriate, perimeter of the package may be tested.
then see Practice E171. NOTE 12—In some applications, sample webs may be indistinguishable
8.2 Heat seal conditioning periods may be determined by from each other, but have differences relevant to test results. In these
situations, it is recommended to properly label the tail of each web to
experimentation as sufficient to achieve seal strength stability. enable consistency in gripping and material direction and support report-
8.3 Modification of conditioning practices may be necessary ing considerations in 10.1.8 and 10.1.11.
to meet specific test objectives, such as the measurement of 9.3 When preparing test specimens of flexible material
seal strength at specified storage or handling temperature. (such as a lid) sealed to a rigid material (such as a tray), and

iTeh Standards
(https://standards.iteh.ai)
Document Preview
ASTM F88/F88M-23
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23

NOTE 1—X is the seal dimension to be tested and this dimension varies with sealer configuration.
NOTE 2—Images above represent typical designs and preparation approaches; other designs compliant with this standard may warrant alternate
approaches.
NOTE 3—Sample width dimensions are referenced as examples only; reference 6.2 for options.
FIG. 2 Recommended Specimen Dimensions

4
 F88/F88M − 23
where the flange thickness and seal geometry allow, cutting test report should indicate the details of any technique used to
through the flexible material (such as a lid), while leaving the control tail orientation.
rigid material intact is acceptable. Alternatively, cutting com- 9.7 The seal shall be tested at a rate of grip separation of
pletely through the flange is another acceptable approach, as 8 in. ⁄min to 12 in. ⁄min [200 mm ⁄min to 300 mm ⁄min].
long as all subsequent seal strength data for comparison is
prepared and tested in the same manner. Additionally, caution NOTE 13—Impact of variation in grip separation rate is discussed in
is needed to avoid damage to the seal or injury to the operator. Appendix X3.
See A2.2 for further discussion. 9.8 For each cycle, report the maximum force encountered
9.4 Clamp each leg of the test specimen in the tensile testing as the specimen is stressed to failure and identify the mode of
machine. The sealed area of the specimen shall be approxi- specimen failure.
mately equidistant between the grips. Recommended distance 9.9 If the test strip peels apart in the seal area, either by
between grips for specimens comprised of a flexible material adhesive failure, cohesive failure, or delamination, the average
sealed to a rigid material (such as a tray) is dependent on the peel force may be an important index of performance and
size and the design of the rigid material (tray); see Annex A1 should be measured by the testing machine as a part of the test
and Annex A2 for further discussion. Initial grip distance may cycle.
be limited by equipment capability and structure. Consistency 9.9.1 Follow the machine manufacturer’s instructions to
in initial grip distance is subject to reporting per 10.1.6. select the desired algorithm for calculating average seal
Recommended distance between grips (initial unconstrained strength. Fig. 3 illustrates the effect of an algorithm that uses
specimen length) for seals between flexible material is: data only from the central 80 % of the curve to calculate the
Fin and Hot-Wire Seals average.
HighlyA extensible materials 0.39 in. [10 mm] 9.9.2 If the test strip does not peel significantly in the seal
LessA extensible materials 1.0 in. [25 mm]
Lap Seals X + 10 mmB area and separation is largely by breaking, tearing, or elonga-
tion of the substrate material, as opposed to actual separation of
A
Grip separation distance is recommended to be limited for highly extensible the seal between two materials, average force to separate may

iTeh Standards
materials (100 + % elongation at seal failure) to minimize interferences (see have little significance in describing seal performance and
annex).
B
Refer to Fig. 2, Note 1, for definition of X. should not be reported in such cases (see Annex A1.1).

(https://standards.iteh.ai)
NOTE 14—If average force reporting is conducted for a given dataset,
Warning—Caution should be exercised to avoid injury to the but not reported for specific samples within that dataset due to interfer-
operator of the machine, or damage to the machine itself based ences as described above, the rationale shall also be noted with the

collision of machinery apparatus, or Document Preview

on grip travel and potential for contact with the operator, or corresponding interferences per 10.1.13.
related fixtures. 9.10 A plot of force versus grip travel may be useful as an
9.5 Center the specimen laterally in the grips. Align the aid in interpretation of results. In those cases, the testing
specimen in the grips so the seal line is perpendicular to the machine should be programmed to generate the plot.
ASTM
direction of pull, allowing sufficient slack so the seal isF88/F88M-23
not 9.11 Other properties, such as energy to cause seal
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
stressed prior to initiation of the test. separation, may be appropriate in cases where grip travel
9.6 The orientation of the fin-seal tail during the test can results only in peel. When other failure modes (elongation,
have a significant impact on the measured seal strength. The break, tear, delamination (when not a designed peel seal

FIG. 3 Calculation of Average Seal Strength

5
 F88/F88M − 23
separation mode) or other) are present in addition to peel of the TABLE 2 Test Equipment
seal, energy, and other functions must be interpreted with Load Cell
Manufacturer Models
caution. lb N
Dillon AFG-50N 11.2 50
10. Report Instron 4464, 5500R, 5564, 1124, 112.4, 5 kN, 500,
5565, S5R1123, 22.5, 11.2, 2 100, 50, 9
10.1 Report the following: 4442, MN-44
10.1.1 Complete identification of material being tested. Lloyd Instruments 1300-36 22.4 100
10.1.2 Equipment and test method or practice used to form MTS Sintech Renew 4204 25 111.2
Test Resources 2000ZR 25 111.2
seals, if known. Thwing Albert EJA 11.2 50
10.1.3 Equipment used to test seals. Vinatoru Enterprises CCT, HST 11.2 50
10.1.4 Ambient conditions during tests; temperature and
humidity.
10.1.5 Grip separation rate.
10.1.6 Initial grip separation distance. 10.1.15 Maximum force encountered as each specimen is
10.1.7 Seal width. stressed to failure, expressed preferably in Newtons/metre or
10.1.8 Machine direction of material in relation to direction lbf/in. of original specimen width. Gmf/in. and lbf/in. are
of pull may be noted, if known and relevant to the test commonly used.
outcome. 10.1.16 Average Peel Force, if applicable (see 9.9)—If this
10.1.9 Force (strength) values to three significant figures. measurement is reported, a statement of the method or algo-
10.1.10 Technique of holding the tail (Technique A, B, or C) rithm used to calculate the average should be included.
and any special fixtures used to hold specimens. 10.1.17 Plot of force versus grip travel, if deemed signifi-
cant in interpretation of results.
NOTE 15—Variations on Technique shall also be noted (including 10.1.18 Other data not compromised by interferences, if
support mechanisms for technique C).
NOTE 16—Locations for clamping or fixturing of samples shall also be such data are relevant to the specific test purpose.
noted, if known and relevant to the test outcome. 10.1.19 Any statistical calculation deemed appropriate

iTeh Standards
10.1.11 If the seal is made between two different materials,
record which material is clamped in each grip.
(most commonly used are mean, range, and standard devia-
tion).

pling. (https://standards.iteh.ai)
10.1.12 Number of specimens tested and method of sam- 11. Precision and Bias: Flexible to Flexible Applications
11.1 Precision—A round robin was conducted using Prac-
10.1.13 Any other pertinent information that may affect test
Document Preview
results such as interferences as described in Annex A1.
10.1.14 Visual determination of mode of specimen failure.
tice
total
E691 as a guide, involving 18 laboratories measuring a
of 1980 samples distributed over three different test
Frequently more than one mode will occur in the course of groups of six laboratories each.3 In order to maintain a focus on
failure of an individual strip. Record all modesASTM testing the method itself, laboratory samples were used to limit
F88/F88M-23
observed. A
the amount of variation in the seals produced. Description of
suggested classification of modes is (see Fig. 4):
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
materials measured and methods used are listed in Table 1.
Adhesive failure of the seal; peel.
Cohesive failure of the material. Seven different brands of tensile testing equipment were used
Break or tear of material in seal area or at seal edge. to collect information. The model identifications and load cell
Delamination of surface layer(s) from substrate.
sizes are listed in Table 2. Statistical summaries of repeatability
Elongation of material.
Break or tear of material remote from seal. (within a laboratory) and reproducibility (between laboratories)
are listed in Table 4 for SI units and Table 3 in units of pounds
TABLE 1 Materials and Techniques per inch. Fig. 5 is graphical depictions of data.
Test Series “1” 11.2 Concept of “r” and “R” in Tables 4 and 3—If Sr and
(MAXIMUM Values) SR have been calculated from a large enough body of data, and
Heat Seal Coated 50# Basis Weight Paper sealed to Film (48 ga. PET/2
mil LDPE) for test results that are averages from testing 10 to 30
Supported 90° @ 12 in./min specimens (see Note 17) for each test result, then the following
Unsupported @ 12 in./min applies:
Unsupported @ 8 in./min
Test Series “2” NOTE 17—Repeatability and reproducibility comparisons for smaller
(Both MAXIMUM Values and AVERAGE Peel Values were reported) sample size (n = 10) can be found in Appendix X1 and Appendix X2 of
Uncoated 1073B Tyvek® sealed to Film (48 ga. PET/2 mil LDPE)
Supported 90° @ 12 in./min
this test method.
Unsupported @ 12 in./min 11.2.1 Repeatability “r” is the interval representing the
Supported 180° @ 12 in./min
Reverse direction of materials in grips @ 12 in./min
critical difference between test results for the same material
Test Series “3” and method, obtained by the same operator using the same
(MAXIMUM Values) equipment on the same day in the same laboratory. Test results
Coex HDPE 3 mil film with peelable sealant layer sealed face-to-face
Foil Composite 5 mil with same peelable sealant surface sealed
face-to-face
3
Unsupported @ 12 in./min Supporting data have been filed at ASTM International Headquarters and may
Supported 180° @ 12 in./min be obtained by requesting Research Report RR:F02-1023. Contact ASTM Customer
Service at [email protected].

6
 F88/F88M − 23

iTeh Standards
(https://standards.iteh.ai)
Document Preview
ASTM F88/F88M-23
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
NOTE 1—Multiple failure modes/seal separation modes and interferences can occur on a single sample.
Color Key:

NOTE 2—Typical schematic representation of seal failure modes for seals between two webs.
FIG. 4 Test Strip Failure Modes

shall be deemed to be not equivalent if they differ by more than 11.4 Bias—There are no recognized standards by which to
the “r” value for that material or method. estimate the bias of this test method.
11.2.2 Reproducibility “R” is the interval representing the
critical difference between test results for the same material 12. Precision and Bias: Flexible to Rigid Applications
and method, obtained by different operators using the different 12.1 The precision of this test method for Flexible to Rigid
equipment in different laboratories, not necessarily on the same applications is based on an interlaboratory study of Test
day. Test results shall be deemed to be not equivalent if they Method F88/F88M, Test Method for Seal Strength of Flexible
differ by more than the “R” value for that material or method. Barrier Materials, conducted in 2021. Six volunteer laborato-
11.3 Any judgment in accordance with 11.2.1 or 11.2.2 will ries were asked to test four different material configurations.
have approximately 95 % (0.95) probability of being correct. Every “test result” represents an individual determination, and

7
 F88/F88M − 23
TABLE 3 r and R Summary (Inch-Pound Units)

NOTE 1—In accordance with Practice E691, enter the larger of the values obtained by the use of (equation for Sr) and (equation for SR) as the final
value of SR to be used for precision statements.

Units: lb/in. sr sR r R Grand

Avg
1 Supported 90° 0.0396 0.0473 0.1109 0.1324 0.957
1 Unsupported at 12 in./min 0.0929 0.1286 0.2601 0.3602 1.424
1 Unsupported at 8 in./min 0.1063 0.1488 0.2977 0.4166 1.417
2 PEAK 90° 0.2629 0.2539 0.7361 0.7361A 0.923
2 AVG 90° 0.1600 0.1599 0.4480 0.4480 0.684
2 PEAK Unsupported 0.2683 0.2630 0.7513 0.7513A 1.709
2 AVG Unsupported 0.2510 0.2492 0.7029 0.7029A 1.453
2 PEAK 180° 0.2977 0.3292 0.8335 0.9218 3.239
2 AVG 180° 0.3070 0.3567 0.8596 0.9988 2.990
2 PEAK 180° Reverse 0.5536 0.5971 1.5501 1.6720 1.464
2 AVG 180° Reverse 0.2560 0.2451 0.7167 0.7167A 0.936
3 3 mil Film Unsupported 0.0605 0.1059 0.1695 0.2966 1.695
3 3 mil Film 180° 0.1786 0.3003 0.5001 0.8408 3.463
3 5 mil Foil Unsupported 0.0382 0.0272 0.1069 0.2051 1.209
3 5 mil Foil 180° 0.3164 0.3476 0.8859 0.9731 4.569
A
Per Practice E691: “Enter the larger of the values obtained by the use of (equation for sr) and (equation for sR) as the final value of sR to be used for precision statements.”

TABLE 4 r and R Summary (SI Units)

NOTE 1—In accordance with Practice E691, enter the larger of the values obtained by the use of (equation for Sr) and (equation for SR) as the final
value of SR to be used for precision statements.
NOTE 2—The values stated were converted from inch-pound units.

Units: N/25.4 mm

1 Supported 90°
iTeh Standards sr

0.1761
sR

0.2103
r

0.4932
R

0.5889
Grand
Avg
4.2569
1
1
2
Unsupported at 12 in./min
Unsupported at 8 in./min
PEAK 90°
(https://standards.iteh.ai) 0.4132
0.4729
1.1694
0.5722
0.6618
1.1293
1.1568
1.3242
3.2742
1.6021
1.8529
3.2742A
6.3343
6.3031
4.1057
2
2
2
AVG 90°
PEAK Unsupported
AVG Unsupported
Document Preview 0.7117
1.1936
1.1167
0.7112
1.1700
1.1084
1.9927
3.3421
3.1267
1.9927
3.3421A
3.1267A
3.0426
7.6020
6.4633
2 PEAK 180° 1.3242 1.4643 3.7077 4.1002 14.4078
2 AVG 180° 1.3656 1.5868 3.8236 4.4431 13.3002
2 PEAK 180° Reverse ASTM F88/F88M-23 2.4625 2.6562 6.8950 7.4373 6.5122
2 AVG 180° Reverse 1.1386 1.0901 3.1880 3.1880A 4.1635
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
3 3 mil Film Unsupported 0.2693 0.4712 0.7539 1.3194 7.5397
3 3 mil Film 180° 0.7945 1.3357 2.2245 3.7400 15.4042
3 5 mil Foil Unsupported 0.1699 0.3203 0.4757 0.8968 5.3779
3 5 mil Foil 180° 1.4074 1.5460 3.9406 4.3287 20.3239
A
Per Practice E691: “Enter the larger of the values obtained by the use of (equation for sr) and (equation for sR) as the final value of sR to be used for precision statements.”

all participants were instructed to report 30 replicate test results 12.1.1.1 Repeatability limit can be interpreted as the maxi-
for each material. Practice E691 was followed for the design of mum difference between two results, obtained under repeat-
study and analysis of the data; the details are given in Research ability conditions, that is accepted as plausible due to random
Report RR:F02-2001.4 causes under normal and correct operation of the test method.
12.1.1 Repeatability Limit (r)—The difference between re- 12.1.1.2 Repeatability limits are listed in Table 5 and Table
petitive results obtained by the same operator in a given 6 below.
laboratory applying the same test method with the same
apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test 12.1.2 Reproducibility Limit (R)—The difference between
material within short intervals of time would in the long run, in two single and independent results obtained by different
the normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed the operators applying the same test method in different laborato-
determined values only in one case in 20. ries using different apparatus on identical test material would,
in the long run, in the normal and correct operation of the test
4
method, exceed the following values only in one case in 20, as
Supporting data have been filed at ASTM International Headquarters and may
be obtained by requesting Research Report RR:F02-2001. Contact ASTM Customer 95 % repeatability is expected, exceeding the values in 5 % of
Service at [email protected]. the cases.

8
 F88/F88M − 23

FIG. 5 F88/F88M Round Robin r and R (at 95 % confidence) with Average Measured Values

TABLE 5 Peak Strength (lbf per in.)

Repeatability Reproducibility

iTeh Standards
Number of Repeatability Reproducibility Reproducibility
AverageA Standard Standard
Material Laboratories Limit Limit CoV
Deviation Deviation
n x̄ Sr SR r R %

(https://standards.iteh.ai)
Vertical
3 1.53092 0.17032 0.20365 0.47689 0.57021 13.3
Separated Strip
Vertical Full Tray 3 1.50954 0.19078 0.48934 0.53418 1.37014 32.4

Document Preview
Horizontal
3 1.54850 0.18103 0.22233 0.50687 0.62253 14.4
Separated Strip
Horizontal Full
3 1.67291 0.13249 0.18631 0.37096 0.52166 11.1
Tray
A
The average of the laboratories’ calculated averages.
ASTM F88/F88M-23
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
TABLE 6 Average Strength (lbf per in.)
Repeatability Reproducibility
Number of Repeatability Reproducibility Reproducibility
AverageA Standard Standard
Material Laboratories Limit Limit CoV
Deviation Deviation
n x̄ Sr SR r R %
Vertical
3 1.28679 0.15346 0.18074 0.42969 0.50608 14.0
Separated Strip
Vertical Full Tray 3 1.17903 0.16141 0.36840 0.45195 1.03153 31.2
Horizontal
3 1.41866 0.16315 0.21139 0.45683 0.59189 14.9
Separated Strip
Horizontal Full
3 1.53236 0.12731 0.17941 0.35648 0.50235 11.7
Tray
A
The average of the laboratories’ calculated averages.

12.1.2.1 Reproducibility limit can be interpreted as the 12.1.4 Any judgment in accordance with statement 12.1.1
maximum difference between two results, obtained under would normally have an approximate 95 % probability of
reproducibility conditions, that is accepted as plausible due to being correct. Test method validation is essential for users of
random causes under normal and correct operation of the test the standard to understand reproducibility. Refer to Guide
method. F3263 for guidance on test method validation.
12.1.2.2 Reproducibility limits are listed in Table 5 and
Table 6 below. 12.2 Bias—At the time of the study, there was no accepted
12.1.3 The above terms (repeatability limit and reproduc- reference material suitable for determining the bias for this test
ibility limit) are used as specified in Practice E177. method, therefore no statement on bias is being made.

9
 F88/F88M − 23
12.3 The precision statement was determined through sta-
tistical examination of 720 results, from 6 laboratories, on 4
material configurations. Further details are in Appendix X2.

ANNEXES

(Mandatory Information)

A1. INTERFERENCES

A1.1 Failure Mode—The objective of this test method is to preceding paragraphs, the initial clamp separation distance
measure the strength of seals between a flexible material, and should be set at a relatively low value to minimize that
another flexible material, a rigid material, or a semi-rigid potential.
material. The intent is to determine seal strength by measuring
force required to peel a seal apart while pulling on the ends of A1.4 Peel Rate versus Grip Separation Rate—In peel
a strip of material containing the seal. However, the pulling testing, whenever separation of the grips holding the test strip
process may or may not result in the desired mode of strip is translated completely into peeling of the seal, an increase in
failure. During the test cycle, the grips are moved apart at a set grip separation of X cm causes an advance of the failure line
rate while the force required to extend the ends of the strip is into the seal of 0.5X cm. The peel rate in this ideal situation is
continuously monitored. Extension of the specimen ends can therefore 1⁄2 of the grip separation rate. This arithmetic is
cause one or a combination of the following effects within the commonly overlooked, leading to peel rate being incorrectly
specimen itself: equated with grip separation rate.

iTeh Standards
Break or tear of material at edge of seal. NOTE A1.1— For example, a 2 cm separation of grips results in a 1 cm
Elongation of the material. peel on each tail of the sample. Similarly, a 2 cm/min grip separation rate
Break or tear of material remote from seal.
results in a 1 cm/min peel rate of the sample.

and must be identified as such (https://standards.iteh.ai)

A1.1.1 These effects are due to failure of the material itself
in the test report. These effects A1.5 Uneven Flanges—Aprons, offsets, or deeper angles of
a rigid or semi-rigid material (such as a tray) may prevent
are typical for weld seal applications. However, for peelable
Document
applications, these effects are interferences that can prevent the Preview
method from measuring the true strength of the seal.
flat/straight peel.
A1.6 Rigid or Semi-Rigid Material and Flange Area
A1.1.2 Seal characteristics such as coating transfer, Bending—If peeling a flexible material (such as a lid) results in
ASTM
deformation, shrinkage, and burnthrough can affect theF88/F88M-23
out- flexing around the perimeter of a seal flange, results can vary
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
come of the test. around the circumference of the semi-rigid material (such as a
A1.2 Effect of Material Elongation on Rate of Peel— tray, which may demonstrate strength variation with individual
Another interference is caused by elongation of the material sides of varying lengths). Additionally, when gripping or
during the test. If the test strip stretches or delaminates during fixturing a rigid or semi-rigid design, presence of lidding
grip travel, the rate of peel will be lower than that calculated material may increase overall sample rigidity; conversely,
from the grip separation rate. In this instance, the ratio of removal of lidding material (for example, sample strips or
stretch to peel is unknown and may vary during the test. The areas adjacent to sample strips) may result in less overall
rate of peel is then no longer controlled by the machine. Rate sample rigidity, causing the rigid or semi-rigid material to flex
of peel is known to affect measured seal strength value. throughout the course of the test, resulting in impact to results.

A1.3 Initial Clamp Separation Distance—Since the mate- A1.7 Curved Flanges—Non-square or rectangular rigid or
rial between the seal and the grips can interfere significantly semi-rigid material (such as a tray) designs may prevent a
with measurement of seal strength, in accordance with the perpendicular seal peel.

10
 F88/F88M − 23

A2. SAMPLE PREPARATION AND CONSIDERATIONS

A2.1 Seal Location—Various locations around the perim- flange may cause damage to the seal, such as splitting, inspection of the
eter of a package may have different seal strengths. The samples for damage should be established.
location of the tested seal should be noted, if known and NOTE A2.3—Since injury to the operator preparing and cutting the
relevant to the test outcome. sample could occur, the instructions for preparing and cutting samples
should include practices to avoid injury.
A2.2 Specimen Preparation—When preparing the test strip
A2.3 Rigidity—Definitions for “semi-rigid plastic” and
for a rigid or semi-rigid material (such as a tray) with a flexible
“rigid plastic” are provided in D883, utilizing specific elasticity
material (such as a lid), the rigid or semi-rigid flange may be
cut along with the flexible material (such as a lid). When the values, whereas “flexible” is defined in F17 in terms of
flange is completely cut through, the resulting section may characteristics regarding ease of flexing or manipulating the
have a loss of rigidity and may cause variation when compar- material. For the purposes of this standard, the intent of
ing seal strength to a sample from an intact flange. Longer rigid understanding rigidity pertains to sample fixturing and impact
or semi-rigid designs may necessitate cutting the specimen into on samples throughout the test. From this perspective, the
multiple samples, if the length exceeds the height of the tensile existing definition of “flexible” applies. “Rigid” connotates
testing machine. materials that do not bend under the test conditions, and
NOTE A2.1—Modifications to samples or addition of fixtures may “semi-rigid” connotates materials with some level of bending
impact the measured results; however, these factors need to be defined under test conditions (for example, easily bent, but typically
within the testing technique. This includes the use of appliances, jigs, tape,
etc. as modifications.
returns back to original position upon release); a common
NOTE A2.2—Since forces imparted from bending or cracking of the seal application for “semi-rigid” is form-fill-seal packaging.

iTeh Standards
APPENDIXES

(Nonmandatory Information)

(https://standards.iteh.ai)
X1. FLEXIBLE TO FLEXIBLE ILS BACKGROUND, RATIONALE, AND ANALYSIS

X1.1 The Interlaboratory Study (ILS)Document

performed in 2004 to Preview
create the data for the statement found in Section 11 Precision
X1.1.2 The ILS were essentially separate and data was not
compared from group to group unless changes in technique
and Bias was collected from 18 labs.3 The ASTM F02.3 and resulted in common effects to measured values or to r and R. At
F02.6 subcommittees in joint participation ranASTM nearly F88/F88M-23
2000 that point observations could be made as to the effect across
https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/4c403573-775c-4240-8a46-ee00e4b5a554/astm-f88-f88m-23
samples through tensile test devices that fulfilled the require- material types and uncommon laboratory sources.
ments of the apparatus section of this test method. Since the
X1.1.3 One of the decisions made by the joint committee
method and the techniques discussed in the standard were the
was on the required sample size needed for assurance of an
focus of the study the joint subcommittee concluded that the
effective measurement (n = 30 versus n = 10). It was believed
samples should be as close to homogeneous as possible, that is,
that the greater sample size was necessary to have confidence
not production machine samples but controlled laboratory
that data from a destructive test method would result in a
made samples. Therefore they were created using materials
statistically accurate statement of variation. This sample size
from one single lot each, then sealed on a single laboratory
required an extremely high number of samples be made for all
sealing machine from each of the three companies volunteering
laboratories to test all materials and techniques (18 laboratories
for sample preparation and trimmed to the defined cut size
× 30 samples × 11 techniques). Reducing this number drove the
prior to shipping out to the test laboratories and their assigned
ILS into the three independent series shown in Table X1.1. In
contacts.
order to resolve the question of accuracy or confidence in the
X1.1.1 Three protocols were designed, each using a differ- outcome of the analysis, the data was also analyzed by splitting
ent material combination. The materials used included a heat the data into n = 30 and n = 10 using the first ten data points
seal coated paper material sealed to a film (PET/LDPE), an reported by the laboratories. Results in this study are shown in
uncoated Tyvek®5 1073B material sealed to a film (PET/ Table X1.2. Overall, the average measured values of the data
LDPE) and a set of material composites (3 mil Film/Film and series differed by less than 0.1 #/in., the “r” actually resulted in
5 mil foil/foil) with a peelable sealant surface sealed face-to- improved levels or less than 5 % increases in 73 % of the tests
face. Each series was designed to identify the effects of run over the 3 series. Reproducibility suffered most in the test
variations in the use of the method on the final measured result for incorrect loading (Series 2 Reverse) and in the 90°
as well as on repeatability (r) and reproducibility (R). These supported tail where a difference in 0.02 in Series 1 accounted
techniques are listed in Table X1.1. for a 17 % increase and in Series 2 a 0.1 and 0.18 accounted for
22 % to 26 %. Looked at another way, Fig. X1.2 plots the
5
Tyvek is a registered trademark of DuPont, Inc. average with 63 standard deviations for each of the sample

11