Distribution Of This ADDocument Is Unlimited

TECHNICAL REPORT67-4 CD

EVALUATION OF WAX IMPREGNATED CORRUGATEDFIBERBOARD CONTAINERS

by

Anderson MillerContainer Engineering Branch

Project reference: JULY 19661M6433Z4D587

Container DivisionU. S. ARMY NATICK LABORATORIES

Natick, Massachusetts

FOREWORD

In the shipment of military supplies to forward areas, one of themajor problems has been maintenance of high performance of containersunder adverse weather conditions. In the case of Southeast Asia, thespecial problem has been the effect of the combination of conditionsassociated with a tropical environment, especially high heat and humidity.

The study is concerned with the possibility of extending and in-creasing the performance of fiberboard containers through use of theprinciple of impregnation of the fiberboard with one of the ,arious wax/plastic/resin impregnating compounds commercially available.

The -valuation was accomplished under the Container DevelopmentProject No. I-M-643-324-D587 and the Packaging and Containers forUnitized Loads Task No. 01.

EDWARD A. NEBESKY, Ph. D.ChiefContainer Division

APPROVED:

DAIE H. SIELING, Ph. D.Scientific Director

W. M. MANT .Colonel, QMCCommanding

![ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD

ABSTRACT iv

-y. IN71RODUCTION 1

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT 2

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 4

TESTS FOR EVALUATION 5

PROCEDURE 6

CONTAINER EVALUATION 6

COMPONENT EVALUATION 7

RESULTS 11

CONTAINER EVALUATION 11

COMPONENT EVALIUATION 12

DISCUSSION 17

CONCLUSIONS 18

RECOMMENDATIONS 19

APPENDIX z0

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to cvaiuate the performance of wax/resin* impregnated fiberboards and containers for applicability for use in

shipment overseas under all environmental conditions, and as a substitutefor conventional weather resis'tant materials which may become criticaland are in short supply during periods of emergency.

Sixteen different tests were performed conforming to ASTMStandards or to the requirements of Federal Specifications, utilizingup to 5 different environmental conditions: standard, arctic, hot desert,rain and tropical. Containers were given compression tests, drop testsand vibration tests. Components were tested for ply separation, waterabsorption, puncture resistance and stiffness, burst (Mullen), peeling,bhteding, blocking, scoreability and bending, grease resistance, solarradiation, sliding friction, printability, and flameability.

It was found that wax impregnation contributes significantly to increasedcompression strength through increased resistance to water absorption,and contai iers of wax impregnated board were superior to other gradesof fiberboard in compresion resistance. Differences in rough handlingwere negligible. This was related to the findings that wax impregnation hadlittle effect on dry puncture resistance and on the Mullen bursting strength.Test results indicate that Z75 pound test is the minimum grade which shouldbe considered for the wax impregnation process for Military use inoverseas shipment.

It is recommended that consideration be given to wider use ofwax-im-pregnated containers in Military supply, especi. for overseasshipment; that wax impregnated board of not less than, pounds testMullen burst dry and 175 pounds test Mullen burst wet be considered asa substitute for selected items, especially in palletized loads; thatperformance data for evaluation be obtained from test shipments;and that higher grade wax impregnated boards be investigated forother purposes, such as sheathing, unitizers, ane, consolidation typecontainers for overseas shipment.

ii

INTRODUCTION

During World War H and the Korean conflict, VZs solid fiberboard wasused extensively for level A shipment of Military items of supply,particularly canned subsistence. However, since that time the limited useof VZs has resulted in a marked decrease in Industry's ability to supply theboard when needed. Durhg peace time operations, for reasons of economy,Military items for overseas shipment were usually packaged in domesticgrade fiberboard or at best V3c corrugated fiberboard. These grades offiberbroard were readily available and could be acquired immediately whenneeded,

With the escalation of the war in Southeast Asia the need for high moistureresistance fiberboard containers is now facing the Military again. Thelack 3f warehouses in Vietnam has resulted in supplies and equipment beingexposed to high temperature, humidity and rainfall conditions in outdoorstorage areas. Under these conditions the domestic type fiberboard, and insome cases the V3c fiberboard, deteriorates and delaminates in a relativelyshort period of time, thereby offering little or no protection to the packageditems. Under these conditions, even the V2s solid fiberboard containerslose up to 60% of their compressive strength during extended periods ofstorage. Therefore, in order for the packaged items to remain free fromdamage and serve the purpose for which they are intended, the exteriorcontainers must resist the adverse conditions and retain a higher percentageof their compressive strength.

In order to correct the existing situation various materials are beinginvestigated for use in container fabrication. One material which showspromise is wax impregnated corrugated fiberboard. Unlike coated tiber-boards, this board is completely impregnated with wax throughout each facingand the corrugated medium.

Like any new product being introduced into the system, the waximpregnated fiberboard presented many questions that must be answeredbefore it is accepted for use in fabricating containers fo_ Military use.Some of these questions are:

(a) Does the material meet the requirements of the presentspecification on Wax Impregnated Fiberboard?

(b) How much protection will the containers offer in a hot-humidclimate as encountered in Southeast Asia and how long will they offerthis protection?

-f

(c) Will they be adversely affected by high temperature?High moisture? Intense sunlight and rough handling?

(d) At what temperature will the wax begin to flow from thecontainers, and what effect will it have on sealability?

(e) Are they toxic when used for food items?

(f) How well do they stack in palletizing? And finally, whatis their overall performance in comparison to VZs solid fiberboard?

In order to answer these questions, a study was conducted on theperformance of wax impregnated fiberboard containers for level Ashipment.

The study was designed to simulate any conditions that the packageditems might encounter along the supply line to Southeast Asia as well asother areas. In addition to the tests on wax impregnated containers, thecomponent parts of the containers were also evaluated for their physicalproperties. These test results were compared with the results obLainedin VZs, V3c and domestic containers. Some test work in the area had alreadybeen done by various Government and Industrial laboratories but the scopeof their evaluation studies were not, as extensive as that required to predictperformance in a Military shipment to overseas areas such as Vietnam.These tests as well as preliminary tests conducted by the Container Divisionindicated that the wax impregnated corrugated fiberboard may have potentialapplication for use as a weather-resistant fiberboara which might be superiorin some mechanical strength properties to the standard VZs, V3c, and V3sfiberboards.

MATERLILS AND EQUIPMENT

TL.e materials and equipment used in this study were as follows:

Containers. -

(1) VZs solid fiberbcard containers -were fabricated in-housefrom VZs solid fiberboard conforming to PPP-F-3Z0c.

(2) V3c corrugated fiberboard containers were fabricatedin-house from V3c corrugated fiberboard conforming to PPP-F-320c.

2

(3) The 200 pound test and 275 pound test containers werefabricated by the Hollinger Company from corrugated fiberboard withcomponent parts as follows:

(a) 275 pound test. -

Outer liner . 023" caliper kraft, 69 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.

Corrugated medium . 010" caliper kraft, 33 pounds per1000 sq. ft.

Inner liner . 014" caliper kraft, 42 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.

(b) 200 pound test.-

Outer liner . 023" caliper kraft, 42 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.

Corrugated medium . 010" caliper kraft, 33 pounds per1000 sq. ft.

Inner liner . 014' caliper kraft, 42 pounds per 1000 sq. ft.

The wax impregnated containers tested were fabricated from corrugatedfiberboard identical to the 200 pound test and 275 pound test fiberboarddescribed above. The amount of wax pick-up by the containers in processingwas not less then 30%0 by weight and was evenly distributed. The waximpregnation process is accomplished by dipping the pre-cut and pre-scoredsheet stock in liquid resin wax and allowing it to penetrate the board throughout.Fellowing the dipping process the board is then passed on to a draining tankand finally to a dryer. This process was performed by the Baltimore BoxCompany and the resin wax used was Sealite No. 48 furnished by the HumbleOil Company. Both the control containers and wax impregnated containerswere fabricated in two sizes which consisted ot the Standard No. 10 can size18-9/16" x 12-3/8" x 7" and a larger size measuring 22" x 22" x 14". TheNo. 10 can size was intended for use loaded in the drop test and rough handlingtests; while the large size was intended for use empty in the compression test.

The bottom flaps of the containers were stapled with . 103" x . 023" stapleswith 3/8" crowns. 1 The top flaps of the containers were fastened with H. B.Fuller No. 2183 weather resistant adhesive, to insure proper bond. Number10 cans (603 x 700) filled with water and with syrup were used for loads in the

1 The adhesive was applied with a brush and the flaps of the empty containersfor the compression test were clamped together with Z plywood boards untildry. The loaded packs for drop test were inverted after application of theadhesive and allowed to dry.

3

No. 10 size containers tested, with weights from 42-1/2 to 46 pounds. TheNo. 10 size loaded containers were then reinforced with 3/8" x . 015" flatmetal bands placed 2 lengthwise and I girthwise. The larger containers22" x 22" x 14" were not reinforced with strapping. Stencil ink made byMarsh Stencil Machine Cnmpany, Belleville, Illinois, was used to test theprintability of the wax impregnated fiberboards.

Equipment. -

The 10, 000 pound Tinius Olsen Compression Tester was used forconducting the compression tests. The LAB Vibrator was used for vibratingthe packs, and drop testing was conducted using both the LAB and the Gaynesdrop testers.

Burst and puncture tests were conducted on the Mullen Burst Testerand on the General Electric Beach Puncture Tester, respectively. The peelresistance tests were conducted using the S. and S. Scuff Tester. The Ohaustriple beam balance was used for determining the moisture content and thepercent water absorption of the various types of fiberboard.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Environmental conditions were selected to simulate the adverse weatherconditions encountered along Military supply lines with particular emphasisbeing given to conditions expected in Southeast Asia.

During the course of test evaluation all containers were subjected to oneor more of the following conditions:

(1) Standard Conditions, 73 0F., 50% R. H. for at least 48 hours.

(2) Arctic Conditions. -20 0F., for at least 48 hours.

(3) Desert Conditions, 140 0F., 10% R. H. for at least 48 hours.

(4) High Temperature-High Moisture Conditions, 100 0F., 90% R. H.for 7 days or 30 days, as required.

(5) Water Spray, 3" per hour for 16 hours or 24 hours, as required.

(6) Water Immersion; specimen totally submerged under waterfor 24 hours.

4

4°

TESTS USED FOR EVALUATION

When documented procedures were available, tests were conducted inaccordance with the applicable ASTM Standards, Government Specifications,or Federal Standards.

The tests user, for evaluating the containers were as follows:

(1) Compression Tests (ASTM Standard 642)

The load was applied at a rate of 4 inches per minute in topto bottom compression.

(2) Drop Tests (ASTM Standard 775)

The packs were subjected to diagonally opposite cornerdrops from a height of 24" or 30", whichever was required.

(3) Vibration Tests (ASTM Standard 999)

Vibration tests were conducted at 268 rpm, 1G, for 1-1/2 hours.

The following tests were conducted to evaluate the component parts:

(1) Ply Separation Test, PPP-F-310c.

(2) Water Absorption Test, PPP-F-310c.

(3) Puncture Resistance and Stiffness Test, ASTM Standard 781.

(4) Bursting Strength Test, ASTM Standard 774.

(5) Peeling Resistance Test, ASTM Standard 1029.

(6) Bleeding Resistance, ASTM Standard 917.

(7) Blocking Resistance, ASTM Standard 918.

(8) Scoreability and Bending Test - Conducted in accordance torequirements of PPP-F-3Z0c.

(9) Turpentine Test for Grease Resistance, ASTM Standard 72Z.

(10) Solar Radiation Test, ASTM Standard E42.

(1i) Friction Test - Developed for this study.

(12) Printability - Developed for this study.

(13) Flameability - Developed for this study.

PROCEDURE

Container Evaluation.-

Compression Test

Five 22" x 22" x 14" containers fabricated from each of thefiberboard types were subjected to top to bottom compression tests afterexposure to the appropriate environmental conditions. VZs, V3c and waximpregnated containers were compression tested after exposure to eachof the conditions cited in the above section on "Environmental Conditioning".However, the domestic grade containers were not tested at the hightemperature-high humidity, and water immersion conditions. After exposureto the given conditions for the required period of time, containers wereremoved from the conditioning atmosphere, one at a time, and immediatelytested in the Tinius Olsen Compression Machine at a platen speed of 4 inciiesper minute. For the set of containers conditioned at 100 0 F. and 90% R.H.,samples were cut immediately after the compression test and weighed.2- After the samples reached equilibrium at standard conditions, 73 0 F.,50% R. H. , they were weighed again and the amount of moisture pick-updetermined as the difference between the two weights.

Drop Tests

Six No. 10 can containers fabricated from each of tLiefiberboard types were subjected to diagonally opposite corner drop testsafter exposure to the appropriate environmental conditions. A dropheight of 24 inches was used for all conditions except 100°F., 90% R1.H.At the 100OF., 90% R. H. conditions it was necessary to use a 30" dropheight to control the failure point so that the container failure would occurinstead of can rupture and subsequent leakage of contents. At conditionsof 1000F.. 90% R. H., the containers become flexible and tend to sustainmore drops to failure and offer less protection to the cans.

?The oven dry method was not used because of the relatively low meltingpoint of the resin wax in the wax impregnated containers.

6

During the drop tests the number of drops to the first 1"tear. 6" tear and complete scoreline tear was recorded. Also otherphysical damage such as loosening of straps, or breakage and loss ofstraps were recorded.

Level A Cycle Test

Six each of the No. 10 can containers fabricated from V2s,V3c, 275 pound test wax impregnated and Z00 pound test wax impregnatedfiberboard were subjected to a level A shipping test cycle consisting ofthree phases which were as follows:

Phase I Phase II Phase Ill

Water spray at 3" per Exposure to -20 0 F. Exposure to 100 0 F.,hour for 16 hours for 48 hours 90"/o R. H. for 7 days

Eight diagonally Eight diagonally Eight diagonallyopposite corner opposite corner opposite corrdrops from 24" drops from 24" drops from 24"

Vibration for 1-1/2 Vibration for 1-1/2 Vibration for 1-1/2

hours at 268 rpm, IG hours at 268 rpm, 1G hours at 268 rpm, 1G

Component Evaluation. -

Ply Separation Test

Three samples of each type fiberboard, V2s, V3c, 275 pound testwax impregnated, and 200 pound test wax impregnated were totally submergedunder water at 73 0 F. for 24 hours. The samples-were then removed andtested for ply separation in accordance with PPP-F-320. In this test thesolid fiberboard, V2s, is evaluated immediately after removal from thewater, while the corrugated fiberboard is first allowed to dry at 73 0 F.,50%6 R. H. for 48 hours.

Water Absorption Test

Ten samples of each type fiberboard, conditioned at 73 0 F.,50%6 R.H. for 48 hours, were weighed on the "Ohaus" triple beam balance.The samples were then cotally submerged under water at 73 ±5OF. for 24hours. The samples were then removed one at a time and the excess waterremoved by wiping the outer surfaces and allowing the water to drain from.,the flutes of the corrugated board. The samples were ther-weighe'• and thepercent water pick-up determined in accordance with PPP.F-320.

7

-- .. ..�. .. °

Puncture Resistance and Stiffness Test

Five 8" x 16" samples of each type of fiberboard, conditionedat 730F., 50%6 R.H. for 48 hours, were tested on the General ElectricBeach Puncture Tester in accordance with ASTM Standard 781. Threepunctures were made on each sample, from alternating sides of the board,and the average recorded.

With the exception of the non-impregnated domestic gradefiberboards, the puncture test was repea-ed on fiberboard samples subjectedto total water immersion for Z4 hours.

For the stiffness test five 8" x 16" samples of each of thefiberboard types were conditioned at 73 0 F., 50%0 R. H. and tested inaccordance with ASTM Standard 781. The sarples "',re pre-cut at thepoint where the puncture was to be received. Pre-cutting was done bymaking three slits 2-1/2 inches in length, meeting at one point and so spacedangularly that they coincide with the edges of the puncture point as it passedthrough the specimen. Two tests were made on each sample from alternatingsides of the board and results recorded.

Bursting Resistance Tests

Eight samples of each type of fiberboard conditioned at 73 0 F.,5016 R.H. for 48 hours were tested on the Mullen Tester in accordance withASTM Standard 744. Six bursting tests were made on each sample fromalternate sides of the board. With the exception of the non-impregnateddomestic grade fiberboards, the burst resistance tests were repeated onfiberboara samples after being subjected to total water immersion for24 hours.

Peel Resistance Tests

The peel resistance test was conducted on the S&S Scuff Tester.Eight samples were cut from each type of fiberboard. One specimen wasplaced in the bottom fixture of the machine and an identical specimen wasplaced in the moveable fixture. The two specimens were then rubbedtogether for 100 double strokes with a weight of 0. 5 pounds per squareinch applied during the scuffing action.

Bleeding Resistance Test

Five 3 inch square test samples were cut from each of the twogrades of wax impregnated board and prepared for testing in accordance withASTM Standard 917. Each sample was placed between 4" square sheets of

8

white bond paper. These specimens were stacked 5 high, separatedwith 3" square aluminum plates, and placed in an oven heated to 110 0 F.A pressure block producing a force of 0. 5 pounds per square inch wasplaced on top of each stack. The ,est samples were allowed to stand inthe oven for 5 hours and the bond paper was then observed for evidenceof staining. The process was repeated using new samples at each 100F.elevation' in temperature until the board showed evidence of bleeding.

Blocking Resistance Test

Eight samples 1-1/4" x 1-3/4", were cut from each of thetwo grades of wax impregnated fiberboard used in fabricating the containersand tested in accordance with ASTM Standard 918. The samples were conditionedat 73 0F., 50% R.H. for 48 hours. The samples were then stacked inaccordance with the instructions of ASTM Standard 918. Each stack wasplaced between two 4" x 4" aluminum plates, and a pressure block producing0. 5 pounds per sqliare inch was then placed on top of the stacks. Each stackwas placed in a desiccator containing a solution of sodium chloride 4 after bothdesiccator and solution had been brought to equilibrium at 100OF. in an oven.The lid on the desiccator was allowed to remain open for 15 minutes and thenclosed. The desiccators containing the test specimen were then conditionedat 100 0 F. for 24 hours, and the specimens were examined for evidence ofblocking after this conditioning.

Scoreability and Bending Tests

Six samples, 12" x 12", were cut from the V2s fiberboard usedin fabricating the containers and tested in accordance with PPP-F-320.Three each of the samples were scored parallel to the machine directionand three were scored across the machine direction on the KnowltonScoring Machine. Each sample scored parallel to the machine direction wasfolded 180 degrees (toward the male side of the score). Each sample scoredacross the machine direction was folded 900 toward the female side of thescore, returned to the original position, and then folded 90 degrees towardthe male side. In each test the scorelines were observed for breakage ofouter or inner facings.

3 For this test, this deviation of temperature increments was made from themethod cited in ASTM Standard 917 to determine the bleeding temperature ofthe wax board.

"4The sodium chloride solution was used to raise the humidity within thedesiccator to 75%.

9

S

Three each of the corrugated fiberboard samples, includingthe wax impregnated fiberboard, werc scored parallel with the flutes andthree each across the Lutes on the S&S sample making machine. Thesamples were then folded 1800 toward the female score and observed forbreaks in the scoreline.

Turpentine Penetzation Test

Four samples, approximately 16" x 16", of each of the fiberboardtypes were conditioned at 73 0 F., 50% R.H. for 48 hours, and then placed onwhite book-paper sheets 28 x 32 inches. One half of the samples werepositioned with the outer liners up and the remaining half were positionedw~th the inner liners up. Using a tube 1 inch in diameter approximately 10grams of sand5 per pile was placed on the test sample, with several piles4 to 5 inches apart on each test sample. Approximately 5 ml. of coloredturpentinc were then added to each pile of sand, and the white paper undereach samle was examined periodically for stains in accordance with ASTMStandard 72'. The time of penetration of the turpentine was recorded foreach board type.

Solar Radiation Test

Two samples, 8" x 14" of each of the fiberboard types werepre-conditioned for 48 hours at 73 0 F. and 50% R.H., and then tested inaccordance wivth ASTM Standard E-42. The samples were then placed in avertical position in the revolving racks of the National AcceleratedWeathering Unit Type X-IA. Using the twin carbon-arc lamps, the sampleswere exposed to the ultra violet radiation for 50 hours. The samples werethen removed and six Mullen tests conducted on each sample from alternatesides. The results were then compared to that of samples conditioned at730F., 50% R.H. for 48 hours.

Sliding Friction Test (Figure 1)

A No. 10 can size container fabricated from each of tie fiberboardtypes was ioaded with 6 No. 10 cans filled with water, giving a total weightof 44 pounds. Each container was placed on a flat fiberboard surface of amaterial identical to that used in the fabrication of the container, and a flatmetal band 3/8" x .015" was placed loosely around the side and end panelsof the container to act as a harness. A 50 pound capacit>, Hunter type springgage was connected to the band and the container was pulled along thefiberboard surface by applying a force parallel to the surface. The forcerequired to start the movement as well as the force required to continuethe movement of the container was recorded.

5A round-grained, natural silica sand graded to pass a No. Z0 sieve andbe retained on a No. 30 sie,,e.

10

Printability

Stencil imprints were made on a sample of each of thetwo grades of wax impregnated fiberboard. The samples were totallysubmerged under water at 73 0 F. for 7 days, and the condition of thestencilled letters observed daily. The samples were removed andallowed to dry. They were then examined again for evidence of fadingor blotting.

F lam eability

Samples of the various types of fiberboard were suspendedfrom a wire rack. Using a lighted match the time required for the samplesto ignite was taken with a stop watch. Another set of samples 1" squarewere suspended from a wire rack. The flame of a lighted match wasbrought in contact with each specimen for 5 seconds and removed. The?time required for the entire sample to burn was recorded.

RESULTS

Container Evaluation.

Compression Tests

The 275 pound test wax impregnated containers were superiorto VWs and V3c under all cor. litions tested. At the most severe condition,24 hours water immersion, the 275 pound test wax impregnated containershad twice the compressive strength of VZs, and the 200 pound test waximpregnated containers had a higher compression strength than both theVZs and V3c. After exposure to 100 0F., 9076 R.H. for 30 days the275 pound test wax impregnated containers had a slightly highercompression strength than V2s; and the 200 pound test wax impregnatedcontainers had a slightly lower compression strength than V3c. Thecompression strength of the wax impregnated containers was increased whenthey were subjected to -ZOF., whereas, the standard board typesremained about the same. At 140 0 F. the wax impregnated containersshowed a decrease in compression strength, whereas, the compressionstrength of some of the standard fiberboard containers showed anincrease. An average of the compression strength of the containersunder various environmental conditions is presented in Figure 2, andtest data are shown in table 1 of the Appendix. The average moisturecontent 6 (table 13 of the Appendix) of samples taken from the containersconditioned at 100°F., 9076 R. H. were as follows:

6 Moisture content based on samph equilibrium weight at 73 0F., 50%/ R.H.

1i

VZs - 5.46 percentV3c - 5.60 percent275 pound test W.I. - 3.54 percent200 pound test W. I. - 3. 04 percent

Drop Tests

The VZs containers were superior in performance underall conditions tested. Under conditions of 73 0F., 50% R.H., -20 0 F.and 140 0 F. conditioning the performance of V3c containers were approxi-mately 10% lower than that of VZs, and the 275 pound test wax impregnatedcontainers 15% lower than that of VZs. Under 24 hours water spray theperformance of VZs was more than twice that of 275 wax impregnated, whilethe 275 wax impregnated was more than twice that of V3c. The 200 poundtest wax impregnated performed as well as V3c under 24 hours water sprayand approximately 60% as well as V3c and 275 lb test wax impregnatedunder 100 0F., 90% R.H. The performance of both the wax impregnatedcontainers and standard grade containers did not show any significantchange when conditioned at 73°F., 50% R.H., -200F. or 140 0 F. Theperformance of the containers subjected to drop tests under various environ-mental conditions is presented in Figure 3, and test data are shown intable 2 to 6 inclusive in the Appendix.

Level A Cycle Test

In the level A shipping test cycle, the performance of VZs wassuperior to that of the V3c and the two grades of wax impregnated boards.The V3c corrugated containers Pad 275 pound test wax impregnatedfiberboards did not sustain scoreline failure until the final phase of thecycle. The 200 pound test wax impregnated containers failed in the firstphase of the test cycle. Tes. data are shown in table 7 of the Appendix.

COMPONENT EVALUATION

Ply Separation Tests. -

There was no ply separation in any of the fiberboard samplestested.

Water Absorption Tests.-

The wax impregnated samples had a lower water absorptionvalue after 24 hours water immersion than the other types of fiberboardsamples tested. Test data are shown in table 8 of the Appendix.

12

The average percent water absorption for each board type wasas follows:

VZs solid fiberboard- 64%V3c corrugated fiberboard - 103%275 pound test wax impregnated - 42%200 pound tesu %ax impregnated - 54%

Puncture Resistance Tests.-

The average of the Puncture Resistance results 7 for each typeof fiberboard tested with the General Electric Beach Puncture Tester wasas follows:

Standard Conditions (73 0 F., 5O03 R.H.)

Fiberboard Type No. of Beach Units 8

V2s solid fiberboard 545V3c corrugated fiberboard 444275 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 372200 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 266275 lb. test standard corrugated fiberboard 349200 lb. test standard corrugated fiberboard 235

Water Immersion (24 hours)

Fiberboard Type No. of Beach Units

VZs solid fiberboard 559V3c corrugated fiberboard 191275 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 334200 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated fiberboard Z42

7 Complete data shown in table 9 of che Appendix.

8 Beach Unit defined as inch ounces per inch of tear.

13

Stiffness Test. -

The average of the results 9 of the stiffness test conducted onthe fiberboard samples after conditions at 73 0F., 50% R.H. was asfollows:

Fiberboard Type No. of Beach Units

VZs solid fiberboard 259V3c corrugated fiberboard 182Z75 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 258200 lb. test wax im-pregnated corrugated

fiberboard 191275 lb. test standard corrugated fiberboard 158200 lb. test standard corrugated fiberboard 115

Bursting Resistance Tests. -

The averages of the dry1 0 and wet bursting strengths. respectively(data in table II of the Appendix), in pounds per square inch, of the varioustypes of fiberboards were as follows:

Standard Conditions 73 0F., 50% R.H. - (Dry)

Fiberboard Type lbs/sq inch

VZs solid fiberboard 715V3c corrugated fiberboard 496275 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 362"100 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 238

Water Immersion (24 hours) - (Wet)

Fiberboard Type lbs/sq inch

V2s solid fiberboard 513V3c corrugated fiberboard 177Z75 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard 192200 lb. test wax impregnated corrugated

fiberboard lUC

9Complete data shown in table 10 of the Appendix.

1 0 Dry Mullen Bursting tests of domestic fiberboard types were run in thesolar radiation tests and were not duplicated in this test.

14

Peel Resistance Tests.-

AUl of the samples resisted peeling of the facing during the peelingresistance tests.

Bleeding Resistance Tests..-

In the bleeding resistance test, the wax impregnated fiberboardshowed signs of bleeding in the form of small blotches at 140 0 Y.

Block Resistance Tests.-

There was no adhesion or cohesion between the surfaces of thewax impregnated fiberboard samples subjected to the blocking resistancetests. Also, the surfaces of the samples were not marred when separated.

Scoreability & Bending Tests.-

The scoreability and-bending test showed that the scurelines meetthe requirements of PPP-F-320 when folded in the required manner.

Turpentine Penetration Test.-

The results of the turpentine penetration test were as follows:

Fiberboard Type Penetration Time

VZs 4--5 minutesV3c IZ-E5 minutesZOO lb. test standard 1-3 minutesZ75 lb. test wax imnpregnated no penetrationZ00 lb. test wax imprgnatcd no penetrationZ75 lb. test standard no penetrationll

Solar Radiation Test. -

The carbon-arc light did not have any significant effect on the burstingstrength of any of the fiberboard samples. The average of the Mullen Testsof the control samples and the samples exposed to carbon-arc light for50 hours were as follows:

l1The test quantity of turpentine spread through the first liner andcc'rrugated medium without penetrating completely through the1,oard.

15

Irradiated ContrOlFiberboard Type lbs/in2 ibs/in-

VZs 725 719V3c 467 490275 lb. test wax impregnated 368 336200 lb. test wax impregnated 242 240275 lb. test standard 340 344200 lb. test standard Z44 242

Sliding Friction Test. -

Force to Start Force to SustainFiberboard Type Movement Movement

V2s 22 pounds 20 poundsV3c 24 pounds 20 pounds275 lb. test wax impregnated 5 pounds 4 pounds200 lb. test wax impregnated 10 pounds 7 pounds275 lb. test standard 21 pomds 19 pounds200 lb. test standard 22 pounds 20 pounds

Printability. -

The stencil ink on the wax impregnated containers was not affectedafter seven days water immersion at 73 0F. When the samples becamedry there was no evidence of fading or blotting of the stencilled letters.

Flameability Test. -

The results of the flameability tests were as follows:

Burning Time forFiberboard Type Ignition Time 1 sq in samples

VZs 5 seconds 1 m-i-,nute -r4. secondsV3c 3 seconds 37 secondsZ75 lb. test wax impregnated 2 seconds 51 seconds200 lb. test wax impregnated 2 seco'-ds 45 seconds275 lb. test standard 3 seconds 35 seconds200 lb. test standard 1 second or less 31 seconds

16

DISCUSSION

The materials selected as controls for this study represent thevarieties of single wall material used in fabricating containers for bothoverseas and domestic shipments. The two grades of wax impregnatedcontainers were fabricated from corrugated fiberboard similar to thestandard domestic grades used. The tests show that the wax impregnationprocess is advantageous in increasing the compression strength ofdomestic grade fiberboard boxes, but provides little or no increase inrough handling resistance under most of the environmental test conditions.Especially notewotthy is the performance under simulated Arctic andtropical conditions. Even though wax impregnation generally increasesthe compression strength. it gives only equivalent resistance to roughhandling under all severe conditions except hot desert. This equivalencein rough handling would tend to be confirmed by the fact that punctureresistance and bursting strength of both the treated and untreated275 pound test and 200 pound test boards tested under standard conditionsare about the same. It should also be noted that the resistance to roughhandling under standard conditions and hot dry conditions is not increasedby wax impregnation. This indicates that the wax impregnated containersmight present a problem in packaging difficult loads or heavy cannedsubsistence items that encounter rough handling. However, easy loadsor loads similar to lightweight, individually cartoned ration packs should notpresent any problem for 275 pound test wax impregnated containers in levelA shipments. For palletized loads the wax impregnated containers willgenerally be equivalent to or superior to other grades of single wall boardsin all severe environmental areas, except extreme desert conditions.Container unitizers fabricated as large boxes from wax impregnatedfiberboard can also be expected to perform better than other grades ofstandard weather resistant fiberboard in a high moisture environmentbecause of the superior compressior strength properties of the waximpregnated materials.

Since it is becoming more and more difficult to obtain V2s for level Ashipment, the 275 poumd test wax impregnated fiberboard shows promiseas being a replacement for VWs for certain items. It is being introducedinto the industrial system of this country daily and will therefore be moreeconomical than VZs in the future.

There were questions as to the adhesive bond, printability, toxicproperties, and resistance to fungus growth of wax impregnated containers.To answer these ques:ions the Food and Drug Administration and industrialfirms supplying printing ink and adhesives were contacted. The Food andDrug Administration has approved the use of Sealite 48 resin wax, underan amendment to Regulation 121, 2526, for use in impregnating containersfor shipping fruits and vegetables and iced poultry, meat and fish.

17

-,4

Various types of weather resistant adhesives and plastics base hotmelts can be made available for machi-- sealing as well as brush androller seaing o wax entd contaii.ers. To test the adhesive

bond of the containers used in this study the flaps fastened with adhesivewere examined during the rough handling tests after exposure to thevarious conditions. In almost every pack there were no failures of theglued flaps unless fiber tear occurred, and this was never a 100% failure.Usually, failure of the stapled flaps occurred before that of the flapsfastened with adhesive.

One definite advantage of wax impregnation is that it reduces thewater absorption properties of the fiberboard. This accounts for thehigher compression strength of the containers after 24 hours waterimmersion and 100%, 90% R.H. conditions.

The turpentine test shows that the wax impregnated fiberboardis also superior to standard types of fiberboard in resisting greasepenetration. For this reason consideration can be given to usingwax impregnated board for packaging items such as spare parts treatedwith various oil preservatives and for level A shipments of frozen meatitems.

There was no blocking of the samples when heated to 100 0 F.,75% R.H. for Z4 hours. However, the wax impregnated boards beganto show signs of bleeding at 140 0 F. Based on the results of the frictiontest a problem may be encountered in palletizing loads of wax impregnatedcontainers. Because of the very low coefficient of friction between twowax impregnated surfaces, iich a load will definitely need a sheath or

some other form of stabilization to hold the containers in place duringmovement, handling and shipment. The friction test showed that thewax impregnated containers are Z to 4 times as unstable as standardcontainers when stacked on like surfaces. One other disadvantage ofwax impregnated fiberboard is the flameability properties. The resin waxin the board tends to act as a fuel when ignited and the ignition timefor wax impregnated fiberboard is about 100% faster than V2s and about50% faster than V3c fiberboard. Just how critical this v'ould be is notknown because none of the standard fiberboards are fireproof, andprecautions against fire must always be taken in warehouses and storageareas.

CONCLUSIONS

The 275 pound test wax impregnated corrugated containers showpromise as being suitable for level A shipment of certain items,especially in palletized form, where the characteristics of high compressionresistance will be of advantage while the effects of rough handling on

18

-. - - .. ' -,..-----

individual containers will be minimized. These items must be of aphysical shape so that they will not puncture or cut the fiberboard,typical examples being individual ration packs and clothing packs.The Z75 pound test wax impregnated containers will retain a highercompression strength than VZs or V3c under various environmentalconditions. The 275 pound test wax impregnated containers will besuperior to the currentjy used fiberboard in resisting stacking loadsunder the high moisture conditions which exist in Vietnam. Waximpregnated fiberboard considered for use in level A shipments shouldhave a bursting strength of no less than 350 pounds/square inch dryand 175 pounds/square inch after Z4 hours water immersion, and themaximum water pick-up of the 24 hour water immersion should be nomore than 45%. The 200 pound test wax impregnated fiberboard containersare unsuitable for overseas shipment. However, they may be suitable forlimited level B or level C shipment where the wax impregnated cartonresults in an economical advantage over an untreated box plus a caseliner for selected items.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

(1) Consideration be given to the wider use of suitable waximpregnated containers in the Military supply lines, especially foroverseas shipment.

(2) Wax impregnated board of not less than Z75 poundsMullen test dry and 175 pounds Mullen test wet be considereA as asubstitute for V3c and VZs for selected supply items, especially inpalletized loads.

(3) Performance lita be obtained on test shipments orinitial shipment of items procured in wax impregnated containers forevaluation purposes.

(4) Higher grade wax impregnated corrugated containers,sheathing materials, unitizers, and consolidated type containers beinvestigated for use in overseas shipment.

(5) The wax impregnated ZOO pound test fiberbo;,rd be consideredfor selected items where it results in economical advantage over the useof an untreated box plus a case liner for limited level B or level Cshipment.

19

APPENDIX

Detailed results of the container tests andcomponent tests are tabulatedas follows:

TABLE PAGE

1 Compression Test of 22" x 2Z" x 14" Containers(Empty) 21

2 Drop Tests of No. 10 Can Containers Tested AfterAfter Conditioning at 73 0F., 50% R. H. for 48 Hours- 24" Drop Height 23

3 Drop Test of No. 10 Can Containers Tested AfterExposure to -20 0F., for 48 Hours - 24" Drop Height A4

4 Drop Tests of No. 10 Can Containers Tested After

Exposure to 140 0F., 10% R. H. for 48 Hours - 24"

Drop Height 25

5 Drop Tests of No. 10 Can Containers Tested AfterExposure to 3" Water Spray per Hour for 24 Hours -24" Drop Height 26

6 Drop Tests of No. 10 Can Containers Tested AfterExposure to 100 0F., 90% R. H. for 30 Days - 30"Drop Height 27

7 Rough Handling Tests of No. 10 Can ContainersSubjected to the Ltvel A Test Cycle 28

8 Water Absorption Test of VZs & V3c FiberboardSamples after 24 Hours Water Immersion 31

9 Puncture Tests of Fiberboard Samples Conditioned at73 0 F., 50% R. H. for 48 Hours & Samples Subjectedto 24 Hours Water Immersion 32

10 Stiffness Test of Fiberboard Samples Conditioned at73 0F., 50% R. H. for 48 Hours & Tested Withthe General Electric Beach Puncture Tester 33

11 Mullen Test of Fiberboard Samples Conditioned at73 0F., 50% R. H. for 48 Hours and Samples Subjectedto 24 Hours Water Immersion 34

12 Mullen Burst Test of Fiberboard Samples Exposed to

Carbon-Arc Light for 50 Hours and of Control Fiber-board Samples Conditioned at 73 0F., 50% R.H. for48 Hours 35

13 Moisture Content of Samples Taken After CompressionTest from Containers Conditioned at 100 0 F., 90%R.H. for 30 Days 37

20

C)P t- co\ r-I-r -\ c-(~ p

04 r-4 H8r-

to' HH ~ 1H~HHcoId

C\J P ggg 0\ m n-4NM9 N%0G ýX ~ -H r-4H Htrr4 - K.Hr-4 H' HHH H ri

o Bo

CIc1 H H rA \JC Hr-4 H, HHHir-4 H

C.,

ccrt

A0 H 4 H, Hn H

*I H C\I (~~'LA 1~ HC'.j 0 DH \ ('C~j \I'~i Cj mcr\ M P A r r- r-- r-

- .- - I 'A xr - IH-

U) U

E-4

011

0r)

040

U)E 0 0 IA 0000~0mo r m-r---

0~

0 UN 00

C14

0.

E-4 r-a o4 jr)

H -4r4 -

H C~j M~Z U-\ W H C~s M -Ir w~

22

r 4 1 0O 0- CC- 4 C \ (. J ZNJý j

E-Q -) (13 dI

00

r4 'HCJH H4r4-A:L-- - " " r4 n Y' I H ko 0 1~P. 0

0ý 0) I*

C9C

0-H0 C ' ICL ' C Jj\ '

HH

4') 5HNH~ Q~H H

r=K +F00

C0- 40 0o 0 \0 \* E- r- C\ S' 5' C0 frI i ' - - - - - - _

021 D 0

CM(I

02

cis c

0E- 4-)

o0 0

0 * co*l

H 00)OC/2 t- C. -z 'LAO 0 m r- ~ ~ H r4 J M rq -4r- ( r

0H~

00000 [4 F'00 H\ CN -- IS

E-400

WHH HH H00r- Q

43 $0 I 44a I- - -HrIHHHO0000 000 0000

C-41 '

0 24

~c ~

4) r L

to " ;_ ) co c' ~ ~ H 0~ - C f r N f l

H- R0 4-- c'i C~j C'j H H H- 0 000C.Q) C- cr. iFr

0

4-) .. t-2 t

I I

H1 HQH H r~

E- G)H -10 UN0 f L\0 A

0 to 74)~C~ 4- )v.1I'C

0

4) H ;.

z L 0 o\ma\C r-0H0\1C a\ C\1 COJVLA00 r-- 4

pr * a~O* * l

CcI0 0)I a

+> 4) \00 (\ \0C14CV ý)25

4) 0 0 V)

4HHH

0000U) IN C C

0

liii *

E-4 *4

Z50 0 00

0 0 ---I -.-urxr4

o 0

0 H8-' 034

d %0 D 00CC 0.%0 0 4

0 NB

04 0

00

0)

t26

4-~ .3 1 -.4F\, c - icJ

s-I

C,) I- -l

HHC044

Cj)q

Hz L

AI A H --- UNV C\

U00

E-I

9~~S-4G) ~ I l IO clAH CC HCjfZ1cX I 'J'

O\0

H k4> eHH~ H~ H- H H H H-

xIr\Otx~ .O~\I~--- I _ _A

H C\ C~-'\'.o V H C'4 m(---I 'U\'D t

27

-4-I w

0 r0

m0

09 00 I0 0

Ow .4 0 )

E-a 09 0)1

W0 0w-4 s~-4 .

GC'~j .44.-4 -

4> 0U) Ok-oH 0 0 MDbO

.CO 0 00-4cc-4

0- 44)n4;-44-o) U) .0 9a) H

o1-4 e 4-)' SO4

540 > >,

E-40 -'r

Off)

E-4

0 0)

Z~ d)9

4) 4)I $U)H 4D

P.I O-4 4rp 0 4:1

o o 0) H)4 0

0 c

P-44

0cc

H

O'UN 0 O)C)Ir 0) 'If\ UN 14N UN

U) 40: Cf' C e l C C 0

0 C.i

V) co

+)00pEc'

-P bD$o OCj 0

*r4>

-Pi

U0 '

0 HH

+3 0 0

0 0 '-0 i 0:0

-b

U) I.- bf)

A I

C=4z 0 4C) E-tI ' S

£1 I-i $4

) r43 $4(1) H () a)

GOoorrI- co.0.oo ~ ~ U CC oo 0c

iVC 4) 0.0 4I 'HO. -4' 0 )ca c

Z~0)

0 ( D T

o ) 4-)

a)

0U))

r4 cc

HC'J~4I\' 0

29

0

9 5.4 Us0)

54>

t0%0

+JO2 NO 4-

0

E04. 0

r 4- 4-14r 4 0 544. >)

4) 00

=:i -ri .54 000 4q-

Pt9 E-

00. oRa,

oa IN IH$

0

0 0 co' 33 0 C'~tga

toJ 4-: CM . C~l~% ri r- H~. I-i ~ . u o

\30

t~- w-- L ~ -

21 H

*g-1 H H r-I ,44 H H C

0 C

C~i 0Cd ;4 cc

C'J C)b.~QQ

.0l CI co 0 - , P 0G r 0r. 0 mcjcjG r

tic 04.) ~ \ r- j a- r-'. H\0~ o~ c 0 O~r-I-\ C'\Cj 0 0 0 P

0 Er4.) 'c

HH

2 .t6 H C'.j M U "r-a CCONQ0 ,- c\j ý C xtr\'. t- cc C.H H-

E--J

E-l

00

0o CO 0) 0)0 > >4

Fi.0 Lica11

:2 r.s'4 34 0 * * 9 A 9 . o . & 4cO Dr ;r :0 f-r0i C OHHH 00O\O -

r4C

U)

0)

oA- 14or co~ Hr 'c 0-* 0 -'

- -- -7 -:1-:1-1t : Z z : -j-I Ic\jC --

-I-

E-'

p 0

0 14

I-Co

3-44

t- (Ni --- I~ ~nmmr

V4)

I ,I4-D

0

::2I c)I Hj z~ -L 0Cr(-C% r- OW Hr4 c

O~4to: Ic \0c N~: t ý- H Cf% V\C7\-It

CD r

0 CD

> >)

32

rX.4 HH H HHHH Hr-1HH C

06 CP r-4

544 5.4 0 OZ) Cr )a \ ha

I C,)

~E- 0

14-

oil E-4

U,E- --

E-4,

ooOumU

UN00 0U \x\U 0054i 5. \ l ciCjCj ~ l 4 54 -irI -

4])

>.---~. -?; .

00

I-IHH 04

0 4.~t) CMj ,o c V\O0rn 0 \j cy \ efO c\ -"uoI

0 HHi,-4HH)

C~l

mUO0,-:1ccXA

%0

-- 3 0

CMJ $4

r- ~ ec'H ONC'(~ ---7 U c

:4

4)

(D

0 E4

34

C4

H C'J

Ho W

0.

co 4o 00 0f000o0

-0 00) )

14 00

m0 )1 0 00 00 00 00

H . r-C- UV --.77 A 0 -4

000

c0 00 co(o 0

o C.) 4),

00,

< CUr 00HC 0 J\- - '-t bC Ci C.)

E-4 00.

00 00

H -40 c 0 C'j .-~j -CIl -C ~

Z 1-4o E-4 )0

0j 0 0) W Q

00r

CO ~0 0

C.)

Cf)~o 00Oo0CN A O~c' CJ' c-J

w 9 r.C Cl)jm C)m ~ - ~

C0 "

00 00

Hn MHIV(' J C.4(i ViCM C~

0 0

00

E-4 Cr4

V) =) t-

0 I C- 0 ~ 0 a ArnIR conz. C-Y Si MC r c ~ YC

90~~. 00 F)0 g

.0j 4.' .0j

H~~. 0)Cjc - ~ -If vCj- ~ ~

CE, k

ca AP 0

000 QR 0 0C\ 0 004j Cs'Ar\ N\Z lX\ C%\0)DH

0(J * * . .ý *

D00

Fz4

~~U N 00 0 0i' 0 * , 0 ..

E-40 CP\~ 'LC rtfmO0fH.4.10 \O .~0 "

t ' +4)

H C~j CjCjC \jJCJ\ ~ 'C~j C' C~ C)

E- 0

(D C,

El8 H $4j cor C\C% : I\

k C~j $4 ( 0

r-. 4 4) ) 4 -

0E- :IO00

Q. V4 C

0 -Q 4 )

P-4 b\ - r C\JcrG)

()00PL4~

+30 E0 e%

Ct) If\ 00 i

(1 0 ýr \-

P:~ C\j C\J C\J C'~j r4rHHHC'J

H 43 hun H 0 0)

0 I- 0 00( I

W) 4)

$L4 al ILA

C\j

•vp

FIGURE 1

Typical Sliding Friction Test Using the Hunter Gage

38

CZM)$54W oo

4J :PEA

0

o I,fr),s AW4 ly 0

4AA *(r

0 .I 1 ..

00

0 V/ ioor

co I I ANP

S&A

ms II) (LSEsr~o0

or

00 00

' 0 t 0 0cy I,

33

IrA vvi-b. -4 .4.1

0I q

I ii0? h . .t. m m m . ~ n

*1L)

i

0

44~0

s &W

too 414

40j

ITNC ILA•SISTEDSecurity Classification

vU%,M&l1% I .W I KUL.- LA I AK,

$Security cla.ll.lcli•i.r of title, body of abstract and ndezilng aInotfttoni must be entered when the overall report ia classfied)

I ORIGINAT!N 0 ACTIVITY (Corporate author) I2- RCPORT SIECURI TV C LASSIFICA TIONI

U. S. Army Natick Laboratories I UNCLASSIFIED!2b GROUP

3 REPORT TITLE

Evaluation of Wax Impregnated Corrugated Fiberboard Containers

4 DESCRIPTIVE NOT

ES (Type of report and inclusive date*)

S AUTHOR(S) tLast nae firm( name, in,'ral)

Miller, Anderson

6 REPORT DATE 17. OrALNO OF PAGF, 7b NO OF REFS

July 1966 _ 40 1Oa CONTRACT OR GRANT NO 9a ORIGINATCR'S RE.'ORT NUMBER(S)

b PROJECY NO IM643324D587 67-4 CD

c Task 01 9b OTHER REPORT No(S) (Anyo*,.rnmbe,.ru ,.atmay ba..,,e4p.this report)

d

10 AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES

Distribution of this document is unlimited. Release to CFSTI is authorized.

II SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES I12 SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY

U. S. Army Natick LaboratoriesNatick, Massachusetts 01760

13 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of w-x resin

impregnated fiberboards and containers for applicability for ase in shipment

overseas under all environmental conditions, and as a substitute for conventional

weather resistant materials which may become critical and are in short sup?]%'during periods of emergency.

Sixteen different tests were performed conforming to ASTM Standards or to

the requirements of Federal Specifications, utilizing up to 5 different environ-

mental conditions: standard, arctic, hot desert, rain and tropical. Containers

were given compression tests, drop tests and vibration tests. Components weretested for ply separation, water absorption, puncture resistance and stiffness,

burst (Mullen), peeling, bleeding, blocking, scoreability ar.d bending, grease

resistance, solar radiation, sliding friction, printability, and flarneability.

It was found that wax impregnation contributes significantly to increasedcompression strength through increaecd resistance to water absorption, and

containers of wax impregnated board were superior to other grades offiberboard in compression resistance. Differences in rough handling were

negligible. This was related to the firdings that wax impregnation had little

effect on dry puncture resistance and on the Mullen bursting strength. Test

results indicate that 275 pound test is the minimum grade which should beconsidered for the wax impregnation process for Military use in overseas"hinn.ent. (CONTINUED)

DD .0 1473 __________S______SeNC ui ClAS ssT1fcnt,Security Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Security Ciassitication LN

ImpregnationFiberboard Z 1 9Containers 2: 1Waxes 9 1Corrugated QI 0Impact Shock 8Compreasion I8Vib ration 8Tests 81Environmental Tests 1Transportation I41Armed Forces Equipment 41

INSTRUJCTIONS

1. ORIGINATIN4G ACTIVITY:, Enter the name and address 10. AVAULABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES. Enter any lrn-of the contractor, subcontractor, grantee. Departmnent of Deý- j ttoson further disseminston of the report. other than thosefense activity or other organizatio~n (corp'orate author) issuing( -ioe yscr lasfctouigstandard statements

th. rport.such as:2a. REPORT SECU14TY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the oiter- (1 uaiedrqsts botincpsofhsall security classification of the report. Indicate whether repor f~a reo eser mDbti cpeso ti"Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accord- eotfmDC.ance with &ppropriate security regulations. (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of this

2b. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di- repor by DDC is not authorized&"rective 5200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manua*. Enter (3) '*U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies ofthe group number. Also, when applicable, show that opti,)nsa ttis report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDCmarkings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- Iusers shall request throughized.

3. REPORT TITLE- Enter the comaplete report title in all (4) "U. S. military agencies may 044ain Copies of thiscapital letters. T:tlea in all cases should be unclasiuified. report directly from DDC. Other qualified usersIf a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifics- shall request throughtion. show title classification In all capitals in parentHesisimmediately following the title.__ _______________

4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appro~priate, enter the type of (5) "All aistribution of this report is controlled. Qual-report. e.g..* interim, progress, summary. annual. or final, ified DDC users shall request throughGive the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is

cover@-dL ~If the report has been furnished to the Office ofTehis5. AUTHDR(S): Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indi-or in the report. Enter last name, first name, middle initial. cate, this fact and enter the price, if known.If military, show rank and branch of service. The natrn ofthe principal author is an absolute minimum requirement. I L SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE& Use for additional explana-

6.REPORT DATE: Enter the date of the report as day, toyoesmonth, year, or mouth, year. Uf more than one date appears 12. WPONSORJNG MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name ofon the report. use date of publication, the depsrtmenti.l project oftl'2:e or laboratory sponsoring (par-

78. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: The total page count i ng for) the research and developiment. Include address.should follow normal pagination procedures. L~e., enter the 13. ABSTRACT Enter an abstract giving a brief and factualnumber of pages containing information. Isummary of the document Indicative of the report. even though

7b. UMBR O REERENES nte th totl nmbe of it masy also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical re-7f.r e cUMBER OF thEFEECS repothrotltube.o port. If additional space is required, a continuation sheet

1Shall be attached.X.. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter I shgl eial htteasrc fcasfe ethe repoicbl wasmittenr ftec.n.c r rn ne hc ports be unclassified. Each paragraph of xhob abstract shall

the rportwas rittiL .end with an indicatior of the mnilitary security clossification8b, 8c. & &d. PROJECT NUMBER. Enter the appropriate Iof the information in the paragraph, represented as (TS), (S).millitary department identification. such as project numb~er, (C). or (U).subproject number, system numbers, task number, etc. ' Th~Igi is no limitation on the leghof the abstract. How.

9s. ORIGINA.'OR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the offi- ever, the suggesited lenrth is from -I50 to 225 words.cial report number by which the document will be identified 14 KEY WORDS. Key words are technically meaningful termsand controlled by the originating actpvity. This number ai~at or short phrases that characterize a report and may be used asbe unique to this report. index entries for catologinst the report. Key words must _e

9b. OTHER REPOR^1 NUMBERS): If the report has been I selected to that no securit; classification is-required. Iden-

assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator fiers. such as equipment model designation, trade namne. "liti-

or by the sponsor), also enter this numnber(s). tary project code name, geographic location. may be used asIkey words 'but will be followed by an indicati~n- of technical

,oniext. The assignment of links. rules, and weights is

UNCLIASSiFIEDSecurity C&SSsification

ABSTRACT (Continued)

It ic recommended that consideration be given to wider use ofwax-impregnated containers in Military supply, especially for overseasshipment; that wax impregnated board of not less than 144 pounds testMullen burst dry and 175 pounds test Mullen burst wet be considered asa substitute for selected items. especially in palletized loads; thatperformance data for evaluation be obtained from test shipments;and that higher grade wax impregnated boards be investigated forother purposes, such as sheathing, unitizers, and consolidation typecontainers for overseas shipment.

I.

di-

f

":h

3