materials

Article
Compression Strength Estimation of Corrugated Board Boxes
for a Reduction in Sidewall Surface Cutouts—Experimental and
Numerical Approaches
Lajos Fehér 1 , Renáta Pidl 1 and Péter Böröcz 2, *

1 Department of Applied Mechanics, Széchenyi István University, Egyetem tér 1, 9026 Győr, Hungary
2 Department of Logistics and Forwarding, Széchenyi István University, Egyetem tér 1, 9026 Győr, Hungary
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Corrugated cardboard boxes are generally used in modern supply chains for the handling,
storage, and distribution of numerous goods. These packages require suitable strength to maintain
adequate protection within the package; however, the presence and configuration of any cutouts
on the sidewalls significantly influence the packaging costs and secondary paperboard waste. This
study aims to evaluate the performance of CCBs by considering the influence of different cutout
configurations of sidewalls. The compression strength of various B-flute CCB dimensions (200 mm,
300 mm, 400 mm, 500 m, and 600 mm in length, with the same width and height of 300 mm), each for
five cutout areas (0%, 4%, 16%, 36%, and 64%) were experimentally observed, and the results were
compared with the McKee formula for estimation. The boxes with cutout areas of 0%, 4%, 16%, 36%,
and 64% showed a linear decreasing tendency in compression force. A linear relationship was found
between compression strength and an increase in cutout sizes. Packages with 0% and 4% cutouts did
not show significant differences in compression strength (p < 0.05). Furthermore, this study shows
a possible way to modify the McKee estimation for such boxes after obtaining empirical test data
since the McKee formula works with a relatively high error rate on corrugated cardboard boxes with
sidewall cutouts. Utilizing the numerical and experimental results, a favorable estimation map can
be drawn up for packaging engineers to better manage material use and waste. The results of the
Citation: Fehér, L.; Pidl, R.; Böröcz, P.
study showed that the McKee formula does not appropriately estimate the box compression strength
Compression Strength Estimation of
Corrugated Board Boxes for a
for various cutout sizes in itself.
Reduction in Sidewall Surface
Cutouts—Experimental and Keywords: paperboard packaging; box compression test; package design; McKee formula; cutout
Numerical Approaches. Materials
2023, 16, 597. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma16020597
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Tomasz
Garbowski and Aleksander Marek Most of the goods transported use various transport packaging, including the most
often used paperboard packaging. This is the leading material to ensure the necessary
Received: 10 November 2022 protection and logistical aims, such as stacking, handling, and forming unit loads during
Revised: 27 December 2022
distribution, due to its load-bearing capacity and other beneficial properties [1,2]. The main
Accepted: 4 January 2023
advantages of paper-based packaging are the reliable protection of products, in addition to
Published: 7 January 2023
relatively low packaging costs, recyclability, and biodegradability [3,4]. Stacking packages
on top of each other can cause damage to the packaged product, so before doing this,
it is necessary to find an appropriate estimation method or to perform a series of tests
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
to determine the mechanical strength of various constructions of cardboard boxes [4–6].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The situation is more complex if there are some special requirements for the box, such as
This article is an open access article hand holes, ventilation holes, and openings, respectively [7–11]. Additional considerations
distributed under the terms and involving corrugated cardboard boxes (CCBs) are optimal packaging material costs and
conditions of the Creative Commons sustainable development strategies within their product-packaging range [12]. Basically,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the cost of CCB packaging depends on the number of layers and paper/cardboard quality,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ which are in relation to the mass used [13]. The latter, of course, impacts the cost of
4.0/). packaging solutions and the final mass for destruction or recycling after use. Therefore,

Materials 2023, 16, 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020597 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2023, 16, 597 2 of 15

it is in the interest of the actors in the industry to find the box with optimal mechanical
properties, which, on the one hand, adequately ensures product protection and, on the
other hand, leads to acceptable packaging costs and waste savings.
Corrugated cardboard is made of odd layers, usually three or five. In the case of
three-layered corrugated cardboard, the corrugated layer is placed between the inner and
outer flat layers, while five-layered cardboard has two corrugated layers. There are also
several types of corrugated layers according to flute height and flute length. The individual
layers are bonded together by glue. In the paper industry, the highest flute is denoted by A,
followed by flute C, and the lowest normal flute is B. There are so-called micro-flutes with
the letters E and F (FEFCO, European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers) [14].
The optimal package design of corrugated boxes for packaging engineers is a major
challenge [15]. When trying to ensure product-packaging integrity, the situation is fur-
ther complicated by environmental conditions that can affect the mechanical behavior of
corrugated board, including temperature, relative humidity changes, perforations, prints,
etc. [16,17], which can decrease the resilience of the integrity of the packaged product to
damages [8–11,18]. However, the most critical issue of compression strength for CCBs is the
presence of any openings, handling, or ventilation holes on the walls, and their dimension,
orientation, shape, and number [8,19].
One possible way to determine the strength of corrugated boxes is to perform a series
of tests in laboratory conditions following standard protocols. In the paper packaging
industry, these tests cover the compression, bending, and bursting of corrugated boards.
However, the most important and practical tests are the box compression test (BCT) and
the edge crush test (ECT). The latter can give information to use as input in an analytical
formula for predicting compressive strength. The well-known semi-empirical formula to
determine the possible stacking load is McKee’s equation [18,20]. The McKee formula is a
simple, practical application using parameters of paper, board, and boxes with an arbitrarily
chosen constant. The disadvantage of the method is that the formula is applicable to
relatively typical box containers without modification of holes, cutouts, and so forth.
In the last 50 years, many researchers have tried to extend the applicability of McKee’s
formula and presented different approaches. There is a method by Kellicutt and Landt [21]
that developed a model for compressive load sizing based on the principle of annular
compressive strength. Beldie et al. presented a study in 2001 that modeled the mechanical
behavior of corrugated cardboard packages subjected to static compressive loading [22].
Biancolini and Brutti [23] presented a numerical model for splitting the properties of cor-
rugated cardboard boxes with strength calculations. Allerby et al. [24] presented a study
in 1985 in which they modified the constants and exponents of McKee’s formula. In 1987,
Schrampfer et al. extended the applicability of the McKee relationship to a wider range
of cutting methods and equipment with a combined board-edge crush technology [25].
Furthermore, the McKee constant was later analyzed in more sophisticated way in compli-
cated cases by Garbowski et al. [26]. There are studies in which the authors have shown
that additional tests are required and, therefore, an updated formulation should be used,
which was recently modified by Aviles et al. [27] and later by Garbowski et al. [28,29].
As it was mentioned above, the sidewalls of the box are often weakened by cutouts
for various purposes. There can be several reasons for this: tab-like cutouts, ventilation
holes/openings (mainly for agricultural products), viewing windows, etc. These solutions
have a negative influence on the compression strength of the boxes, and this phenomenon
was investigated by several authors [8,30–36].
In 2020, Garbowski et al. [35] indicated that a smaller hole on the sidewall would
ensure better (greater) compression strength, but it is necessary that it would be located at
the center of the wall. On the other hand, the McKee formula cannot give precise results in
the aspect of a cutout independent of its position, shape, and size. An additional important
issue in the compression strength investigation is the length-to-width ratio of the CCB.
Research has shown that if the aspect ratio changes from 1 to 3, then the compression
 It must be mentioned here that after a careful literature review, the authors could not
find any published research that measures and/or analyzes the interconnection of these
variables on such a wide range of box dimensions and large and growing cutout sizes
with a primary focus on material reduction. There is a gap in the literature for a wide
Materials 2023, 16, 597 variety of experiments in this area. The papers published so far mainly focused on3 of the
15
mechanical properties of individual/special box dimensions, with only a partial under-
standing of the overall relationships. This study attempts to develop an estimation
method
strengthfor the compression
increases at first and strength of cardboard
then decreases; boxesthe
furthermore with various compression
maximum (growing) cutout
force
sizes. Cutout technology is generally used for various
can be observed when the aspect ratio was approximately 1.6 [37,38].purposes such as ventilation, re-
duction in material,
It must viewing
be mentioned windows,
here that afteretc. First, empirical
a careful box compression
literature review, the authorstests
couldwere
not
performed on a wide
find any published range ofthat
research dimensions,
measures using
and/or 250 box samples
analyzes in total to observe
the interconnection the
of these
changes
variablesinonmechanical
such a wide strength,
range ofand
boxthen an analysis
dimensions and was
largeperformed
and growing comparing the with
cutout sizes em-
pirical results
a primary with
focus onthe analytical
material resultsThere
reduction. of theisMcKee
a gap formula. Finally,for
in the literature this
a paper presents
wide variety of
an estimation map for the McKee constant with a given number of cardboard
experiments in this area. The papers published so far mainly focused on the mechanical samples
along various
properties of cutouts. Therefore, this
individual/special boxpaper can provide
dimensions, withnovel
only insights
a partialinto circumstances
understanding of
for
the packaging engineers to
overall relationships. design
This studyboxes based
attempts to on experimental
develop data using
an estimation methoda simple
for the
method for compression
compression strength ofstrength
cardboardestimation.
boxes with various (growing) cutout sizes. Cutout
technology is generally used for various purposes such as ventilation, reduction in material,
2. Materials
viewing and Methods
windows, etc. First, empirical box compression tests were performed on a wide
range of
2.1. Samplesdimensions, using 250 box samples in total to observe the changes in mechanical
strength, and then an analysis was performed comparing the empirical results with the
For this study, single-wall B-flute corrugated cardboard (Figure 1) boxes with differ-
analytical results of the McKee formula. Finally, this paper presents an estimation map
ent cutouts were used that were made from the same cardboard material quality. Table 1
for the McKee constant with a given number of cardboard samples along various cutouts.
shows the mechanical specifications for the tested corrugated cardboard. The corrugated
Therefore, this paper can provide novel insights into circumstances for packaging engineers
cardboard material composition contained the following:
to design boxes based on experimental 2data using a simple method for compression
• Outer liner: 210 GD2 (weight 210 g/m , coated white lined chipboard with grey back,
strength estimation.
quality class 2);
•2. Materials
Fluting medium:
and Methods120 HC (weight 120 g/m2, high compression Wellenstoff);
•2.1. Samples
Inner liner: 130 TL 3 (weight 130 g/m2, Testliner, quality class 3).
For this study, single-wall B-flute corrugated cardboard (Figure 1) boxes with different
Table 1. Mechanical specification of the B-flute corrugated cardboard tested.
cutouts were used that were made from the same cardboard material quality. Table 1
shows theProperties
mechanical specifications for Specification Applied The
the tested corrugated cardboard. Standard
corrugated
cardboard material
Board Thicknesscomposition contained the
2.8 mm (±10%)following: ISO 3034 (FEFCO No.3)
• Grammage
Outer liner: 210 GD2 (weight 210 512
g/mg/m2 ,2coated
(±10%)white lined chipboard
ISO 536:1995
with grey back,
quality class 2);
Edge crush test (ECT) 5.1 kN/m (±15%) ISO 3037 (FEFCO No.8)
• Bursting
Flutingstrength
medium:(BST)
120 HC (weight 120 g/m 2 , high compression Wellenstoff);
676 kPa (±15%) ISO 2759 (FEFCO No.4)
• Inner liner: 130 TL 3 (weight 130 g/m2 , Testliner, quality class 3).

Figure 1. Structure (a) and cross-section (b) of corrugated cardboard sample used for this study.
Figure 1. Structure (a) and cross-section (b) of corrugated cardboard sample used for this study.
Table 1. Mechanical specification of the B-flute corrugated cardboard tested.

Both the assembly of the boxes andSpecification

Properties the gluing process were carried out
Applied by hand. For
Standard
this study, 5 boxes with
Board Thickness different lengths and 5 different
2.8 mm (±10%) cutout areas were used. Table 2
ISO 3034 (FEFCO No.3)
and FigureGrammage
2 show the configurations512forg/m
the2 samples.
(±10%) Each sample had
ISO 536:1995 width
the same
Edge crush test (ECT) 5.1 kN/m (±15%) ISO 3037 (FEFCO No.8)
Bursting strength (BST) 676 kPa (±15%) ISO 2759 (FEFCO No.4)

Both the assembly of the boxes and the gluing process were carried out by hand. For
this study, 5 boxes with different lengths and 5 different cutout areas were used. Table 2
and Figure 2 show the configurations for the samples. Each sample had the same width
and height of 300 mm. The ratios of the cutout areas to the sidewall were the following: 0%,
4%, 16%, 36%, and 64%, respectively. The cutouts were cut from the center of the sidewalls
along all four sides. In order to evaluate the measurement results, 10 samples were tested
for each cutout group for each dimension, for a total of 250 samples.
Materials 2023, 16, 597 4 of 15

Table 2. Configuration for dimensions of samples for this study (same width and height of 300 mm).

Area without Top and

Length (mm) Perimeter (mm) Sizes of Cutout (mm) Cutout Area (mm2 ) Cutout Ratio (%)
Bottom Flaps (mm2 )
0 0
40 × 60/60 × 60 12,000 4
200 1000 300,000 80 × 120/120 × 120 48,000 16
120 × 180/180 × 180 108,000 36
160 × 240/240 × 240 192,000 64
0 0
60 × 60/60 × 60 14,400 4
300 1200 360,000 120 × 120/120 × 120 57,600 16
180 × 180/180 × 180 129,600 36
240 × 240/240 × 240 230,400 64
0 0
80 × 60/60 × 60 16,800 4
400 1400 420,000 160 × 120/120 × 120 67,200 16
240 × 180/180 × 180 151,200 36
320 × 240/240 × 240 268,800 64
0 0
100 × 60/60 × 60 19,200 4
500 1600 480,000 200 × 120/120 × 120 76,800 16
300 × 180/180 × 180 172,800 36
400 × 240/240 × 240 307,200 64
0 0
120 × 60/60 × 60 21,600 4
600 1800 540,000 240 × 120/120 × 120 86,400 16
360 × 180/180 × 180 194,400 36
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17
480 × 240/240 × 240 345,600 64

Figure 2. Five
Figure types
2. Five typesofofcutouts
cutouts used onsamples
used on sampleswith
with different
different dimensions.
dimensions.

2.2. Measurement Setup

To observe and determine the maximum compression force, a BCT (box compression
test) was performed on each box. This is a simple load test between a stationary and a
moving steel plate. The device used for BCT measurements can be seen in Figure 3. During
the tests, the compression force and deformation were continuously recorded. Before the
Materials 2023, 16, 597 5 of 15

2.2. Measurement Setup

To observe and determine the maximum compression force, a BCT (box compression
test) was performed on each box. This is a simple load test between a stationary and
a moving steel plate. The device used for BCT measurements can be seen in Figure 3.
During the tests, the compression force and deformation were continuously recorded.
Before the test series, the samples were preconditioned at 30 ◦ C ± 1 ◦ C and 20–30% RH
(relative humidity) for 24 h and then conditioned at 23 ◦ C ± 1 ◦ C and 50 ± 2% RH for 24
h in a climate-testing chamber in accordance with the ASTM D4332 standard [39]. Then,
BCT tests were promptly executed after conditioning to avoid any additional hygroscopic
phenomenon. BCTs were performed according to the ASTM D642 standard [40], so the
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
testing speed of the crosshead was 12.7 mm/min ± 2.5 mm/min until the failure 6ofofthe 17

box occurred.

Figure 3. Box compression test (BCT): (a) control sample and (b) cutout sample (64% cutout area).
Figure 3. Box compression test (BCT): (a) control sample and (b) cutout sample (64% cutout area).

2.3.
2.3. Box
Box Compression
Compression Strength—McKee’s
Strength—McKee’s Formula
The
The empirical
empirical BCT
BCT values
values for
for various
various box
box dimensions
dimensions (Table
(Table 2)
2) were
were then
then compared
with the BCT values calculated
values calculated by the
the McKee formula, so each variant case was
McKee formula, so each variant case was compared
compared
with the values given by the McKee formula formula in order to determine
determine which of the variable
which of variable
parameters of the McKee
McKee formula
formula could
could be
be modified
modified for
for aaunique
uniquedimension.
dimension. TheTheformula,
formula,
which
which waswas created
created in 1963 by McKee, has already been modified modified several
several times
times since
since its
establishment,
establishment, andand currently,
currently, it is widely used in two variants. One One version
version isis the
the full
McKee
McKee formula (Equation
(Equation (1)),
(1)), which
whichisismainly
mainlyused
usedby byresearchers
researchersand
anddevelopers
developers and
and is
relatively
is too
relatively complicated
too complicatedforfor
everyday
everyday use [20,41]:
use [20,41]:
𝑏 ((1−𝑏)
1−b) 𝑍 (2𝑏−1) (1)
𝑃 = 𝑘𝑃 b 𝑚 (√𝐷𝑥 𝐷𝑦 )
q
P = kPm D x Dy Z (2b−1) (1)
The above formula (Equation (1)) gives the BCT value of the box in terms of the com-
Theforce
pressive aboveandformula (Equation
is obtained using(1))thegives the BCT
following value of the
corrugated box in terms
cardboard of the com-
box parameters:
pressive force and is obtained using the following corrugated cardboard
Pm represents the edgewise compression strength of the combined board, and Z is the box parameters:
Pm represents
perimeter thebox.
of the edgewise compression
In addition to these twostrength
basicofparameters,
the combined Z is the
board, and flexural
the in-machine
perimeter of the box. In addition to these two basic parameters, the in-machine
stiffness of the combined board and the cross-machine flexural stiffness of the combined flexural
stiffness
board areofdenoted
the combined
by Dx and board
Dy. and
The the cross-machine
latter must be taken flexural stiffness
into account of the
since thecombined
compres-
denoted by D x and D
sive force on the box causes the sidewalls to bulge, which can occur both in thethe
board are y . The latter must be taken into account since compres-
in-machine
sive force on the box causes the sidewalls to bulge, which can occur both
and cross-machine directions. These values are considered to be non-variable factors for in the in-machine
aand cross-machine
given box type and directions.
size. The These
context values are considered
includes the empiricalto be non-variable
constants denotedfactors
by k for
anda
given box type and size. The context includes the empirical constants denoted by k and b of
b of which k is the multiplier of the whole equation, while b, the empirical constant, is in
which k is the multiplier of the whole equation, while b, the empirical constant, is in the
the exponent, and therefore, the choice of their values will have a major influence on the
exponent, and therefore, the choice of their values will have a major influence on the result
result obtained for the BCT value. It should be specifically noted here that while the con-
obtained for the BCT value. It should be specifically noted here that while the constant is
stant is a multiplier without a unit of measure, the constant also modifies the unit of meas-
ure in the equation.
The original McKee formula suggests a k constant of 2.028 and a b constant of 0.746.
With these data, Equation (1) takes the following form [42]:
0.254
Materials 2023, 16, 597 6 of 15

a multiplier without a unit of measure, the constant also modifies the unit of measure in
the equation.
The original McKee formula suggests a k constant of 2.028 and a b constant of 0.746.
With these data, Equation (1) takes the following form [42]:
q 0.254
0.746
P = 2.028Pm D x Dy Z0.492 (2)

In practice, it is preferable to use a simplified version of the above formula, which is

given by Equation (3) [42]: √ 
P = kPm hZ (3)

The simplified McKee formula uses the cardboard thickness in the equation instead
of the bending stiffness, which is denoted by h. The creator of the equation assumes that
bending stiffness varies proportionally with the thickness of the cardboard, and although
this is a significant mechanical simplification, feedback from the industry confirms this
assumption in general practice [43].
In comparing the BCT results, the simplified McKee formula was used, and the aim
was to determine whether the practical value of the equation was appropriate or whether
another equation should be chosen for the CCB with sidewall cutouts. For our study, the
manufacturer gave a value of 5.3 for the material and box type used, and this was used
in the simplified calculation. The manufacturer did not reveal the original source of the k
value’s calculation.

2.4. Data Analysis

The characteristics of the measured datasets can be described with statistical indicators,
including the maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation, and standard error for
each group. The statistical models were determined using the linear regression method
because it was the best fit for the empirical data. With this method, a simple function
(y(x) = ax + b) was calculated. This method was used in each group where the cutout
areas were the predictor variables, and the compression forces were the output values.
In linear regression analysis, the R2 (coefficient of determination) values were used to
determine the accuracy of the statistical models. The range of R2 was between 0 and 1. If
the R2 value equaled one, then this indicated that the model can predict the dependent
variable (in our case, the compression force) with 100% accuracy. In order to determine the
differences between different the groups, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
executed with the Tukey post hoc test. The significance level was determined at p < 0.05
for the statistical analysis. The following software programs were used for the statistical
evaluations: MATLAB R2021b (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA) and JASP 0.16.3 (the
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

3. Results and Discussion

The force–displacement diagrams of the BCT measurements were drawn for all box
variants. As a sample, for the boxes of 400 mm × 300 mm × 300 mm, five diagrams are
presented for the cut and uncut samples with the ten measurements of each (Figure 4).
Figure 4a shows compression force–displacement functions for the 0% cutout, Figure 4b for
the 4% cutout, Figure 4c for the 16% cutout, Figure 4d for the 36% cutout, and Figure 4e
for the 64% cutout. The numerical data for these measurements are also given in Table 3.
For each additional box type, all the datasets are available, which can be requested from
the authors.
Materials 2023,
Materials 16, x597
2023, 16, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 7ofof17
15

Figure
Figure 4.
4. BCT
BCTcurves:
curves:(a)
(a)with
with0%
0%cutout,
cutout,(b)
(b)4%
4%cutout,
cutout,(c)
(c)16%
16%cutout,
cutout,(d)
(d)36%
36%cutout,
cutout,and
and (e)
(e)with
with
64% cutout (10 samples for box size of 400 × 300 × 300 mm).
64% cutout (10 samples for box size of 400 × 300 × 300 mm).

TableTable
3. BCT4 (N)
contains
valuesthe minimum,
of 10 maximum,
measurements mean,
for different (400 × 300
fifth highest
cutouts BCT× 300
value (which can
mm).
be considered as quasi-median), and standard deviation of the BCT results for the differ-
Sample Number Compression Force (N) for Different Cutout Areas
ent box types, and Figure 5 shows the compression force–displacement diagrams for all
box types for all cutout ratios.0% 4% show the
The diagrams 16%fifth highest36%
(quasi-median) 64%maxi-
mum compression
1 force2769
value of the ten2479
measurements. 2299By comparing 1729the data in the
937 fifth
and sixth2 columns, it is 2665 2566
clear that the quasi-median 2257
value was a good 1762 approximation962 of
3 2843 2528 2295
the sample mean, and since these were real measured data, it was reasonable to plot 1581 879 this
4 2819 2608 2295 1638 988
value. The last column of Table 4 shows the magnitude of the standard deviation of the
5 2532 2539 2324 1486 899
samples. 6The 400 mm box size
2606 was considered
2465 ideal in
2342many respects.
1616 The highest meas-
916
ured BCT7 value was for2644 this box type 2571
(2843 N). For 2235box lengths of1543 500 and 600 mm, 993 the
standard8deviation increased 2477 for cutout areas above 2352
2547 16%. For 500 mm 1699 box lengths, 935it in-
9 2555 2582 2170
creased from 59 N (36%) to 85 N (64%), and for 600 mm box lengths, it increased from1772 962 59
10
N (16%) to 87 N (36%). 2610 2487 2344 1741 992
A cutout of 64% had extremely low values for all box types. The box behaved almost
as anTable
edge 4protector,
contains not capable of bearing
the minimum, maximum, the mean,
load, even though in
fifth highest BCTprinciple, the com-
value (which can
pressive strength of the box is determined by the vertical edges bent into
be considered as quasi-median), and standard deviation of the BCT results for the differentan L shape. De-
spite this, the
box types, and fact that the
Figure compressive
5 shows strength of
the compression the box was radically
force–displacement reduced
diagrams fordemon-
all box
strates thatallthe
types for total ratios.
cutout surfaceThe
areadiagrams
of the sidewalls
show the played
fifth ahighest
significant role in the absorption
(quasi-median) maximum
of compressive
compression forces.
force value of the ten measurements. By comparing the data in the fifth and
sixth columns, it is clear that the quasi-median value was a good approximation of the
sample mean, and since these were real measured data, it was reasonable to plot this value.
The last column of Table 4 shows the magnitude of the standard deviation of the samples.
The 400 mm box size was considered ideal in many respects. The highest measured BCT
value was for this box type (2843 N). For box lengths of 500 and 600 mm, the standard
deviation increased for cutout areas above 16%. For 500 mm box lengths, it increased from
59 N (36%) to 85 N (64%), and for 600 mm box lengths, it increased from 59 N (16%) to
87 N (36%).
Materials 2023, 16, 597 8 of 15

Table 4. BCT results for different box dimensions.

Standard
Length (mm) Cutout Rates (%) Min. Force (N) Max. Force (N) Mean Force (N) Quasi-Median (N)
Deviation (N)
0 2026 2462 2261 2261 146
4 2092 2364 2218 2211 101
200 16 1607 2037 1851 1866 145
36 1245 1448 1347 1348 64
64 460 686 615 616 62
0 2189 2595 2367 2311 136
4 2117 2382 2275 2284 91
300 16 1841 2198 1982 1973 114
36 1296 1470 1374 1377 54
64 690 815 735 731 33
0 2477 2843 2652 2610 123
4 2465 2608 2537 2539 47
400 16 2170 2352 2291 2295 57
36 1486 1772 1657 1638 99
64 879 993 946 937 40
0 2040 2667 2402 2356 189
4 1945 2316 2203 2224 119
500 16 1964 2159 2067 2058 63
36 1541 1714 1604 1577 59
64 748 1004 878 899 85
0 2053 2624 2339 2300 198
4 2006 2371 2190 2167 108
600 16 1880 2082 1981 1972 59
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17
36 1476 1745 1591 1598 87
64 627 915 862 882 85

Figure
Figure 5.5. BCT
BCTquasi-median
quasi-medianvalues:
values:(a)(a)
600 × 300
600 × 300
× 300 × mm box, box,
300 mm (b) 500
(b)×500
300×× 300
300 mm box,
× 300 mm(c) box,
400
×(c)300 × 300 mm box, (d) 300 × 300 × 300 mm box, and (e) 200 × 300 × 300 mm box.
400 × 300 × 300 mm box, (d) 300 × 300 × 300 mm box, and (e) 200 × 300 × 300 mm box.

3.1. Linear Regression

Using descriptive statistics, the average maximum compression force values were
determined in each group (shown in Table 4). Figure 6 shows these average values and
the standard errors related to the cutout areas. Based on the data points (Figure 6), it can
be identified that there was a decreasing tendency in the average maximum compression
Materials 2023, 16, 597 9 of 15

A cutout of 64% had extremely low values for all box types. The box behaved almost as
an edge protector, not capable of bearing the load, even though in principle, the compressive
strength of the box is determined by the vertical edges bent into an L shape. Despite this,
the fact that the compressive strength of the box was radically reduced demonstrates
that the total surface area of the sidewalls played a significant role in the absorption of
compressive forces.

3.1. Linear Regression

Using descriptive statistics, the average maximum compression force values were
determined in each group (shown in Table 4). Figure 6 shows these average values and
the standard errors related to the cutout areas. Based on the data points (Figure 6), it can
be identified that there was a decreasing tendency in the average maximum compression
forces, as in other studies [8,31,35]. The statistical models were determined in the five box
design groups using linear regression. These fitted lines can be seen in Figure 6. There were
very high R2 values in each case, between 0.9904 and 0.9988 (Table 5). These indicate that the
models described the measured data with very high accuracy. Using these linear functions,
the compression forces could be predicted in each box dimension group separately if the
box was made from single-wall B-flute corrugated cardboard. However, it has to be noted
that in the model of 500 mm and 600 mm groups, there were residuals, so if the cutout rate
increased up to 100%, there were residual compression force values that were 11
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW notof possible.
17
The 400 × 300 × 300 group had the steepest regression slope and the highest y-intercept.

Figure 6. Averages of maximum compression forces and its standard errors (SE): (a) 200 × 300 × 300
Figure
mm 6. Averages
box, (b) 300 ×of300
maximum
× 300 mmcompression
box, (c) 400 ×forces
300 × and its standard
300 mm errors
box (d) 500 (SE):
× 300 (a)mm
× 300 × 300
200box, and×(e)
300 mm
box,600 300 ××300
(b)× 300 300
mm × box.
300 mm box, (c) 400 × 300 × 300 mm box (d) 500 × 300 × 300 mm box, and
(e) 600 × 300 × 300 mm box.
Table 5. Statistical model of the BCT values for sample boxes.

Length (mm) Fitted Linear Curve R2

200 −26.11x + 2285 0.9988
300 −25.97x + 2370 0.9972
400 −26.94x + 2663 0.9974
Materials 2023, 16, 597 10 of 15

Table 5. Statistical model of the BCT values for sample boxes.

Length (mm) Fitted Linear Curve R2

200 −26.11x + 2285 0.9988
300 −25.97x + 2370 0.9972
400 −26.94x + 2663 0.9974
500 −22.95x + 2381 0.9904
600 −22.34x + 2329 0.994

Figure 7 shows the box weight–average maximum compression force diagrams. Data
points with different colors represent the results of different cutout areas. The lines
with different colors are the fitted curves of the data points that represent the different
box sizes. The data points on the yellow line are above all other measured data, so the
400 × 300 × 300 sized boxes had the best average compression force results. This result
shows a good correlation with a previous study [37], where the authors showed that the
compressive strength increased at first and then decreased, and in [37], the maximum
compression strength appeared when the length-to-width ratio was about 1.6. In our
Materials 2023, 16,study, the REVIEW
x FOR PEER optimal length-to-width ratio was 1.33. It should be highlighted that in [37], the 12 of 17
material of the tested corrugated box was different (BC flute corrugated cardboard with
five layers). In this study, the highest average compression force was 2651 N ± 39 N for
the 400 × 300 this
× 300 boxthe
study, with 0% cutout
highest averagearea. The lowest
compression forceaverage
was 2651compression
N ±39 N for theforce
400 ×was
300 × 300
614 N ±19 N in boxthe
with × cutout
2000% 300 × area.
300 box
The size
lowest group with
average 64% cutoutforce
compression area. In 614
was almost
N ±19each
N in the
200 ×(except
cutout area group 300 × 300
thebox size
4%), thegroup
200 ×with
30064%
× 300cutout
boxesarea.
wereIn almost
shown each cutout
to have thearea
leastgroup
stiff behavior.(except
In thethe4%4%), the 200
cutout area× 300 × 300the
group, boxes
600were
× 300shown
× 300to have the least
box had stiff behavior. In
the minimum
the 4% cutout
average compression forcearea group,
(Table the 600
4). The 64% × 300 × 300group
cutout box had the minimum
produced averageaverage
the lowest compression
force (Table
compression forces 4). The
in each box64%
sizecutout
group.group
Thisproduced
kind ofthe lowestreduction
weight average compression forces in
significantly
each box size group. This kind of weight reduction significantly reduced the compressive
reduced the compressive strength of the boxes. Figure 7 also shows that the slopes of the
strength of the boxes. Figure 7 also shows that the slopes of the fitted curves decrease
fitted curves decrease when the size of the box increases. That means the cutouts had more
when the size of the box increases. That means the cutouts had more impact related to the
impact relatedweight
to thereduction
weight reduction when
when the size of the sizewas
the box of the box was bigger.
bigger.

Figure 7. Box weights and averages of maximum compression forces diagram along the various
Figure 7. Box weights and averages of maximum compression forces diagram along the vari-
cutouts.
ous cutouts.
3.2. McKee Comparison
The BCT value, calculated with a coefficient of 5.3 given by the manufacturer, was
significantly lower than the measured BCT values for all uncut boxes. In order to calculate
the BCT values using the simplified McKee equation more consistently with the measured
BCT values, a first approximation of the coefficient k of 7 was chosen. The correlation of
 Materials 2023, 16, 597 11 of 15

3.2. McKee Comparison

The BCT value, calculated with a coefficient of 5.3 given by the manufacturer, was
significantly lower than the measured BCT values for all uncut boxes. In order to calculate
the BCT values using the simplified McKee equation more consistently with the measured
BCT values, a first approximation of the coefficient k of 7 was chosen. The correlation of
the BCT values calculated with the coefficient k = 5.3 with the measured BCT values is
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEWshown in Figure 8a. The relation of the BCT values calculated with coefficient k =
137ofto17
the
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
measured BCT values is shown in Figure 8b. Figure 9 shows the relative error calculated
from the results for the different sizes of uncut boxes.

Figure 8. Summary data of BCT values calculated from the McKee equation and measured average
Figure 8.
8. Summary
Summary data
data of
of BCT
BCT values
values calculated from
from the McKee
McKee equation
equation and
and measured
measured average
average
Figure
BCT values for different cutout rates: (a) k calculated
= 5.3 and (b) k =the
7.
BCT values for different cutout rates: (a) k = 5.3 and (b) k = 7.
BCT values for different cutout rates: (a) k = 5.3 and (b) k = 7.

Figure 9. 9.
Figure The relative
The error
relative errorofofthe
theBCT
BCTresults
resultsobtained
obtainedwith
with the
the simplified McKee
McKee formula
formula(k(k==7)7)for
Figure 9. The relative error of the BCT results obtained with the simplified McKee formula (k = 7)
forthe
theuncut
uncutversions
versionsofofeach
eachbox
boxtype.
type.
for the uncut versions of each box type.
From
From thethe diagram,
diagram, it appears
it appears thatthat
therethere
was was
ratherrather an optimum
an optimum valuevalue
(1400 (1400
mm pe-mm
From the
perimeter), diagram,
below and it appears
above which that
the there was BCT
measured rather an optimum
value decreased. value (1400 mm
However, in pe-
both
rimeter), below and above which the measured BCT value decreased. However, in both
rimeter), below and above which the measured BCT value decreased. However, in both
thethe simplified
simplified and
and thethe full
full McKee
McKee context,
context, thethe box
box perimeter
perimeter is aismultiplier,
a multiplier,andand hence,
hence, as as
the perimeter
the simplifiedincreases,
and the full the McKee
BCT context,
values the box
should also perimeter
increase. is a multiplier,
Practically, it canand
be hence,
seen as
that
the perimeter increases, the BCT values should also increase. Practically, it can be seen
theunlimited
an perimeterincrease
increases, the perimeter
in in
the BCT values should
simply also not
could increase.
result Practically,
inin
aalinear it can beinseen
that an unlimited increase the perimeter simply could not result linearincrease
increase inthe
that an unlimited increase in the perimeter simply could not result in a linear increase in
theBCT
BCTvalue.
value.
the BCT value.
As shown in Figure 10, the value of factor k varied between 6 and 8.8 based on the
As shown in Figure 10, the value of factor k varied between 6 and 8.8 based on the
perimeter linear growth of the simplified McKee relation, with a step size of 0.4. The av-
perimeter linear growth of the simplified McKee relation, with a step size of 0.4. The av-
erages of the measured BCT values for each box variation are shown in this interval. From
erages of the measured BCT values for each box variation are shown in this interval. From
the diagram, the coefficients k, applicable to each box size included in the measurement,
the diagram, the coefficients k, applicable to each box size included in the measurement,
Materials 2023, 16, 597 12 of 15

As shown in Figure 10, the value of factor k varied between 6 and 8.8 based on
the perimeter linear growth of the simplified McKee relation, with a step size of 0.4. The
averages of the measured BCT values for each box variation are shown in this interval. From
the diagram, the coefficients k, applicable to each box size included in the measurement,
can be assigned to that box size. This also implies that applying the same k coefficient to
boxes of different geometric sizes would lead to an error in the estimation of the BCT value.
Materials 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
For the cutout samples, the discrepancies were even more significant and could not 14 ofbe
17
handled using the simplified McKee formula.

Figure10.
Figure 10.Iteration
Iterationapproximation
approximationofofcoefficient
coefficient k for
k for averages
averages of of
BCTBCT
testtest results
results for for uncut
uncut boxes
boxes of
of different
different sizes.
sizes.

InInaasimilar
similarstudy,
study,Garbowski
Garbowskietetal. al.[35]
[35]calculated
calculatedBCT BCTvalues
valuesusing
usingthethefull
fullMcKee
McKee
formula and
formula and compared them them with
withtheir
theirmeasured
measuredresults.
results.In Intheir study,
their the the
study, authors per-
authors
formed thethe
performed calculations
calculationsandandmeasurements
measurements for several
for severaldifferent typestypes
different of corrugated card-
of corrugated
cardboard,
board, butbut thethe geometric
geometric dimensions
dimensions ofofthethebox
boxwere
werein inaa relatively
relatively narrow range,range,only
only
for 300 × 200 × 200 and 300
for 300 × 200 × 200 and 300 × 200 × × 200 × 300 mm (length ×
mm (length x width x width × height). Garbowski et
et al.
al.
calculated
calculatedthe theexpected
expectedBCT BCTvalue
valuewith
withaarelative
relativeerror
errorofof15.5%
15.5%forfortheir
theirsamples.
samples.
InInour
ourown ownmeasurements,
measurements,the thegeometric
geometricsize sizeofofthe
theboxes
boxesvaried
variedover
overaawider
widerrange,
range,
but
butforforthe
the400 400mm mmboxes
boxeswithwiththethebest
bestBCTBCTresults,
results,the theerror
errorofofthethesimplified
simplifiedMcKee
McKee
formula
formulawas wasextremely
extremelyhighhigh(around
(around18%),18%),as asthe
themeasured
measuredBCT BCTvalue
valuewas wassignificantly
significantly
higher
higher than the theoretical value calculated with the simplified McKee formula.For
than the theoretical value calculated with the simplified McKee formula. Forboxes
boxes
with
with a length of 500 mm, the measured value and the value obtained from theMcKee
a length of 500 mm, the measured value and the value obtained from the McKee
formula
formulawere were almost
almost coincident,
coincident, and and the
theerror
errorrateratewas
wasbelow
below1%. 1%.ForForboxbox lengths
lengths of
of 600
600 mm, the BCT value given by the McKee relation fell below
mm, the BCT value given by the McKee relation fell below the measured BCT value; here, the measured BCT value;
here, the error
the error was almost
was almost 8%. The 8%.measured
The measured
BCT valuesBCT up values up to
to a box a boxoflength
length 500 mm of exceeded
500 mm
exceeded the BCT values calculated from the McKee function for
the BCT values calculated from the McKee function for uncut boxes everywhere. It is par-uncut boxes everywhere.
Itticularly
is particularly
noticeablenoticeable
that forthat for of
boxes boxes of 400
400 mm inmm in length,
length, which which
gave thegave the highest
highest BCT
BCT values
values in the measurements, the McKee correlation led to much
in the measurements, the McKee correlation led to much lower BCT values. The linear lower BCT values. The
linear relationship between the perimeter and the BCT value in
relationship between the perimeter and the BCT value in the simple McKee formula seemsthe simple McKee formula
seems to be falsified
to be falsified based based
on ouron our measurements.
actual actual measurements. This suggests
This suggests that the that
McKeethe relation-
McKee
relationship is limited as the box perimeter increases, presumably due
ship is limited as the box perimeter increases, presumably due to the change in the length– to the change in the
length–width
width ratio. ratio.

3.3. Limitations for Practice

1. The experimental method in this study used only the B-flute corrugated cardboard,
so the results fell within a narrow range. In reality, boxes made of corrugated card-
board have an extremely wide range and variation, such as A, B, C, and other flutes
Materials 2023, 16, 597 13 of 15

3.3. Limitations for Practice

1. The experimental method in this study used only the B-flute corrugated cardboard, so
the results fell within a narrow range. In reality, boxes made of corrugated cardboard
have an extremely wide range and variation, such as A, B, C, and other flutes with
different numbers of layers, etc.; therefore, the results of this study may be limited for
general use, but they do cover an important issue for a possible reduction in material
and packaging engineering design.
2. It should also be noted here that there are some environmental circumstances that
significantly affect box compression strength, including the changes in temperature
and relative humidity and the difference between dynamic and static load. This study
did not observe these conditions.

4. Conclusions
• The boxes with cutout areas of 0%, 4%, 16%, 36%, and 64% showed a linear decreasing
tendency in compression force. The linear regression model described the measured
data with very high accuracy.
• The 400 × 300 × 300 mm sized boxes showed the best average compression force
results when the length-to-width ratio was 1.33.
• The 64% cutout group produced the lowest average compression forces in each box size
group, which means the 64% cutout significantly reduced the compressive strength of
the boxes.
• For cutout corrugated cardboard boxes, the discrepancies in mechanical strength are
more significant and cannot be handled with the simplified McKee formula. In some
cases, the error of the simplified McKee formula was extremely high.
• The McKee relationship is limited as the box perimeter increases, presumably due to
the change in the length–width ratio.
• An optimum perimeter value (1400 mm) could be found, below and above which
the measured BCT value decreased, as opposed to the McKee formula in which the
perimeter is a multiplier.
• The McKee formula works with relatively high error on corrugated cardboard boxes
with sidewall cutouts and cannot follow the tendency of compressive forces along
various perimeters.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.P. and L.F.; formal analysis, R.P. and L.F.; funding
acquisition, R.P. and P.B.; investigation, R.P., L.F. and P.B.; methodology, R.P. and L.F; supervision, P.B.;
visualization, R.P. and L.F.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F.; writing—review and editing,
L.F. and P.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data published in this research are available on request from the
first author and corresponding authors.
Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge DS SMITH for making the measurement samples
available free of charge for this study. We would also like to thank Zoltán Pánczél for his personal
support and guidance in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fadiji, T.; Berry, T.; Coetzee, C.; Opara, L. Investigating the Mechanical Properties of Paperboard Packaging Material for Handling
Fresh Produce Under Different Environmental Conditions: Experimental Analysis and Finite Element Modelling. J. Appl. Packag.
Res. 2017, 9, 3.
2. Frank, B. Corrugated Box Compression—A Literature Survey. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2014, 27, 105–128. [CrossRef]
Materials 2023, 16, 597 14 of 15

3. Fadiji, T.; Berry, T.M.; Coetzee, C.J.; Opara, U.L. Mechanical Design and Performance Testing of Corrugated Paperboard Packaging
for the Postharvest Handling of Horticultural Produce. Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 171, 220–244. [CrossRef]
4. Talbi, N.; Batti, A.; Ayad, R.; Guo, Y.Q. An Analytical Homogenization Model for Finite Element Modelling of Corrugated
Cardboard. Compos. Struct. 2009, 88, 280–289. [CrossRef]
5. Gong, G.; Liu, Y.; Fan, B.; Sun, D. Deformation and Compressive Strength of Corrugated Cartons under Different Indentation
Shapes: Experimental and Simulation Study. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2020, 33, 215–226. [CrossRef]
6. Quesenberry, C.; Horvath, L.; Bouldin, J.; White, M.S. The Effect of Pallet Top Deck Stiffness on the Compression Strength of
Asymmetrically Supported Corrugated Boxes. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2020, 33, 547–558. [CrossRef]
7. Li, X.; Wang, J.; Gao, D.; Lv, W. A Theoretical and Experimental Study on Corrugated Paperboard Crushing under Quasi-Static
Loadings. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2018, 31, 641–651. [CrossRef]
8. Fadiji, T.; Coetzee, C.; Opara, U.L. Compression Strength of Ventilated Corrugated Paperboard Packages: Numerical Modelling,
Experimental Validation and Effects of Vent Geometric Design. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 151, 231–247. [CrossRef]
9. Opara, U.L.; Fadiji, T. Compression Damage Susceptibility of Apple Fruit Packed inside Ventilated Corrugated Paperboard
Package. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 227, 154–161. [CrossRef]
10. Fadiji, T.; Coetzee, C.; Chen, L.; Chukwu, O.; Opara, U.L. Susceptibility of Apples to Bruising inside Ventilated Corrugated
Paperboard Packages during Simulated Transport Damage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 118, 111–119. [CrossRef]
11. Fadiji, T.; Coetzee, C.; Pathare, P.; Opara, U.L. Susceptibility to Impact Damage of Apples inside Ventilated Corrugated Paperboard
Packages: Effects of Package Design. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 111, 286–296. [CrossRef]
12. Marsh, K.; Bugusu, B. Food Packaging—Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, R39–R55. [CrossRef]
13. Mrówczyński, D.; Knitter-Piatkowska,
˛ A.; Garbowski, T. Optimal Design of Double-Walled Corrugated Board Packaging.
Materials 2022, 15, 2149. [CrossRef]
14. 2022-04-21_FEFCO Code_WEB_unprotected.Pdf. Available online: https://www.fefco.org/sites/default/files/files/2022-04-21
_FEFCO%20Code_WEB_unprotected.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
15. Bartolozzi, G.; Pierini, M.; Orrenius, U.; Baldanzini, N. An Equivalent Material Formulation for Sinusoidal Corrugated Cores of
Structural Sandwich Panels. Compos. Struct. 2013, 100, 173–185. [CrossRef]
16. Defraeye, T.; Cronjé, P.; Berry, T.; Opara, U.L.; East, A.; Hertog, M.; Verboven, P.; Nicolai, B. Towards Integrated Performance
Evaluation of Future Packaging for Fresh Produce in the Cold Chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 44, 201–225. [CrossRef]
17. Zaghloul, M.M.Y.; Mohamed, Y.S.; El-Gamal, H. Fatigue and Tensile Behaviors of Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting Composites
Embedded with Nanoparticles. J. Compos. Mater. 2019, 53, 709–718. [CrossRef]
18. Pathare, P.B.; Opara, U.L. Structural Design of Corrugated Boxes for Horticultural Produce: A Review. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 125,
128–140. [CrossRef]
19. Singh, J.; Olsen, E.; Singh, S.P.; Manley, J.; Wallace, F. The Effect of Ventilation and Hand Holes on Loss of Compression Strength
in Corrugated Boxes. J. Appl. Packag. Res. 2008, 2, 227.
20. McKee, R.C.; Gander, J.W.; Wachuta, J.R. Compression Strength Formula for Corrugated Boxes. Paperboard Packag. 1963, 48,
149–159.
21. Kellicutt, K.; Landt, E. Development of Design Data for Corrugated Fiberboard Shipping Containers. Tappi 1952, 35, 398–402.
22. Beldie, L.; Sandberg, G.; Sandberg, L. Paperboard Packages Exposed to Static Loads-Finite Element Modelling and Experiments.
Packag. Technol. Sci. 2001, 14, 171–178. [CrossRef]
23. Biancolini, M.E.; Brutti, C. Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the Strength of Corrugated Board Packages. Packag.
Technol. Sci. 2003, 16, 47–60. [CrossRef]
24. Allerby, I.M.; Laing, G.N.; Cardwell, R.D. Compressive Strength—From Components to Corrugated Containers. Appita Conf.
Notes 1985, 1–11.
25. Schrampfer, K.E.; Whitsitt, W.J.; Baum, G.A. Combined Board Edge Crush (ECT) Technology. In Project 2695-24, Report One:
A Progress Report to the Fourdrinier Kraft Board Group of the American Paper Institute; Institute of Paper Chemistry: Appleton, WI,
USA, 1987.
26. Garbowski, T.; Gajewski, T.; Grabski, J.K. The Role of Buckling in the Estimation of Compressive Strength of Corrugated
Cardboard Boxes. Materials 2020, 13, 4578. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Avilés, F.; Carlsson, L.A.; May-Pat, A. A Shear-Corrected Formulation for the Sandwich Twist Specimen. Exp. Mech. 2012, 52,
17–23. [CrossRef]
28. Garbowski, T.; Gajewski, T.; Grabski, J.K. Role of Transverse Shear Modulus in the Performance of Corrugated Materials. Materials
2020, 13, 3791. [CrossRef]
29. Garbowski, T.; Gajewski, T.; Grabski, J.K. Torsional and Transversal Stiffness of Orthotropic Sandwich Panels. Materials 2020,
13, 5016. [CrossRef]
30. Han, J.; Park, J.M. Finite Element Analysis of Vent/Hand Hole Designs for Corrugated Fibreboard Boxes. Packag. Technol. Sci.
2007, 20, 39–47. [CrossRef]
31. Fadiji, T.; Coetzee, C.J.; Berry, T.M.; Opara, U.L. Investigating the Role of Geometrical Configurations of Ventilated Fresh Produce
Packaging to Improve the Mechanical Strength—Experimental and Numerical Approaches. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2019, 20,
100312. [CrossRef]
Materials 2023, 16, 597 15 of 15

32. Fadiji, T.; Coetzee, C.J.; Opara, U.L. Analysis of the Creep Behaviour of Ventilated Corrugated Paperboard Packaging for Handling
Fresh Produce—An Experimental Study. Food Bioprod. Process. 2019, 117, 126–137. [CrossRef]
33. Berry, T.M.; Defraeye, T.; Shrivastava, C.; Ambaw, A.; Coetzee, C.; Opara, U.L. Designing Ventilated Packaging for the Fresh
Produce Cold Chain. Food Bioprod. Process. 2022, 134, 121–149. [CrossRef]
34. Mrówczyński, D.; Garbowski, T.; Knitter-Piatkowska,
˛ A. Estimation of the Compressive Strength of Corrugated Board Boxes with
Shifted Creases on the Flaps. Materials 2021, 14, 5181. [CrossRef]
35. Garbowski, T.; Gajewski, T.; Grabski, J.K. Estimation of the Compressive Strength of Corrugated Cardboard Boxes with Various
Openings. Energies 2021, 14, 155. [CrossRef]
36. Huang, T.-C.; Wang, T.-F.; Liao, K.-C. Investigations of Structure Strength and Ventilation Performance for Agriproduct Corrugated
Cartons under Long-Term Transportation Trip. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2022, 35, 821–832. [CrossRef]
37. Wei, Z.; Hua, G.J.; Zhao, D.J. Testing Research of Aspect Ratio on Corrugated Box Compression Strength. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011,
48–49, 1213–1216. [CrossRef]
38. Ambaw, A.; Fadiji, T.; Opara, U.L. Thermo-Mechanical Analysis in the Fresh Fruit Cold Chain: A Review on Recent Advances.
Foods 2021, 10, 1357. [CrossRef]
39. ASTM D4332-01; Standard Practice for Conditioning Containers, Packages, or Packaging Components for Testing. ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006.
40. ASTM D642; Standard Test Method for Determining Compressive Resistance of Shipping Containers, Components, and Unit
Loads. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
41. McKee, R.C.; Gander, J.W.; Wachuta, J.R. Edgewise Compression Strength of Corrugated Board. 1961. Available online:
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/1660/1108-4_000_07111961.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
42. Popil, R. Predicting Box Compression Strength. 2021. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355201289_
Predicting_Box_Compression_Strength (accessed on 10 November 2022).
43. Garbowski, T.; Knitter-Piatkowska,
˛ A. Analytical Determination of the Bending Stiffness of a Five-Layer Corrugated Cardboard
with Imperfections. Materials 2022, 15, 663. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.