Corrugated medium strength assessments in different flute structures
Source abstract
Abstract
Recent advancements in our ability to evaluate papers and our understanding of the mechanics of box failure have brought a renewed focus on measuring the performance of corrugated medium and an associated evolution of paper measurement approaches. This study evaluates the load curves, Hardness (where the fluted structure’s loading shifts away from an elastic response), and Concora medium crush test (CMT) values for a range of corrugated mediums in different common flute geometries. The shape of the load curve is a function of the geometry of the fluting profile and the relative stiffness of the paper, with smaller flutes and heavier papers reaching both the Hardness value and the ultimate load at lower deformation. Nonetheless, while the specific dynamics during the loading process vary, Hardness and CMT values correlate linearly between flute structures, even when testing specimens after different equilibration periods post-fluting. These correlations confirm the applicability of the standard A-flute CMT test to a broad range of papers and potential combined board flute structures, supporting quality assurance processes for medium production and optimization in corrugated board manufacturing.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Material Properties and Processing · Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Composite Material Mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Packaging Corporation of America Research and Innovation Center
Packaging Corporation of America Shin Center
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 1. Dimitrov, K. and Heydenrych, M., South. For. 71(3): 227(2009). https://doi.org/10.2989/SF.2009.71.3.7.919.10.2989/SF.2009.71.3.7.919 ↗
2. 2. Jakubiszyn, M. and Czechowski, J., Prz. Pap. 58(5): 287(2002).
3. 3. Batelka, J.J., Corrugating Int. 2(4): 163(2000).
4. 4. Allan, R., Appita J. 56(2): 88(2003).10.1063/1.1650249 ↗
5. 5. Frank, B., TAPPI J. 6(9): 10(2007).10.32964/TJ6.9.10 ↗
6. 6. Urbanik, T.J., J. Compos. Technol. Res. 18(2): 80(1996).10.1520/CTR10518J ↗
7. 7. Whitsitt, W.J. and Baum, G.A., Tappi J. 70(4): 107(1987).10.1111/j.1399-3054.1987.tb08705.x ↗
8. 8. McGrattan, W., Tappi J. 73(11): 99(1990).
9. 9. El-Hosseiny, F., Schiher, S.C., and Patel, T., Tappi J. 72(7): 127(1989).
10. 10. Urbanik, T.J. and Won, J.M., Prog. Pap. Recycl. 15(4):13(2006).
11. 11. Whitsitt, W.J. and Sprague, C.H., “Optimization of machine proper-ties for compressive strength: survey of factors affecting com-pressive strength,” Project 2695-22, Report 1, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 15 March 1982. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/702 <06April2026>.
12. 12. Demler, C.L., Schneider, S.A., and Berger, T.H., “Relationship between concora, ring crush, short span compressive strength and refining conditions,” Pulping Conf., TAPPI Press, Atlanta, 1994,p.127.
13. 13. Jones, G.L., “Optimization of edgewise compressive strength of corrugating medium,” Project 3471, Report 6, Institute of Paper Science and Technology, Atlanta, July 1992. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/575 <06April2026>.
14. 14. Popil, R., BioResources 7(2): 2553(2012). https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.7.2.2553-2581.10.15376/biores.7.2.2553-2581 ↗
15. 15. Hussain, S., Coffin, D.W., and Todoroki, C., Packaging Technol. Sci. 30(12): 757(2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2323.10.1002/pts.2323 ↗
16. 16. Maltenfort, G.G. and Long, F.D., Fibre Containers Pap. Mills, December 1952, pp. 86-94.
17. 17. Maltenfort, G.G. and Long, F.D., Tappi 39(9): 88A(1956).
18. 18. Whitsitt, W.J. and McKee, R.C. “An instrumentation study of the concora medium fluter,” Project 1108-11, Progress Report One, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 1 May 1959. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/923 <06April2026>.
19. 19. Gartaganis, P.A. and Ostrowski, H.J., Tappi 52(6): 1059(1969).
20. 20. Taylor, R.D., Whitsitt, W.J., and McKee, R.C., “Relationship between conditioned and unconditioned concora results and their relationship with single-face flat crush,” Project 1108-11, Progress Report Three, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 11 April 1960. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/1554 <06April2026>.
21. 21. Maltenfort, G.G., Tappi 47(12): 176A(1964).
22. 22. “Relationship between combined board flat crush and concora flat crush,” Project 1108-35, Report to Technical Division, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 8 February 1966. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/1399 <06April2026>.
23. 23. Whitsitt, W.J. and McKee, R.C., “Distribution of combined board flat crush and correlation with concora flat crush for commercially manufactured board,” Project 1108-28S, Progress Report One, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 6 June 1961. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/929 <06April2026>.
24. 24. “Concora test variability,” Project 1108-35, Report to Technical Division, Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, WI, USA, 13 April 1966. Available [Online] http://hdl.handle.net/1853/1401 <06April2026>.
25. 25. Fibre Box Handbook, Fibre Box Association, Itasca, IL, USA, 1956, 1965, 1972, 1992, 2015.
26. 26. Liu, J.Y., J. Appl. Mech. 53(3): 602(1986). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3171818.10.1115/1.3171818 ↗
27. 27. Kolakowski, Z., Szewczyk, W., and Glowacki, K., Wood Res. 60(5): 747(2015).
28. 28. Urbanik, T.J., “Effect of relative humidity on the optimum flute shape for corrugated fiberboard,” 4th Int. Symp. Moisture and Creep Effects on Paper, Board and Containers, EFPG, Saint-Martin-d'Hères, France, March 1999.
29. 29. Urbanik, T.J., J. Pulp Pap. Sci. 27(10): 330(2001).
30. 30. Park, J.-M., Sim, J.-M., and Jung, H.-M. Appl. Sci. 11(17):7867(2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177867.10.3390/app11177867 ↗