A

IN S PU
TA
PP BLIS
IJ H
OU ED
RN
AL

Fibre Box
Association
Edge CrushTest
APPLICATION AND REFERENCE
GUIDE FOR COMBINED
CORRUGATED BOARD
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Edge Crush Test (ECT) – Explained . . . . .4

Boxes: Combined Board &

Manufacturing Considerations . . . . . . . . .5

Box Compression Strength (BCT) –

Stacking Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Relationship of ECT to BCT . . . . . . . . . . .8

Selecting Materials to Meet ECT

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Appendix A - Moisture Effects on

Paperboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Appendix B – Industry ECT Formulas . .13

Appendix C - Test Method Examples . . .13

Appendix D - Equipment Requirements

for ECT & Related Test Methods . . . . . .15

2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Corrugated boxes have been around since the
late 1800’s and are key components for safe
shipping, distribution, and storage of many com-
mercial, industrial and consumer products.
Boxes provide a lightweight and economical
enclosure to protect products against impact
and compression forces encountered during
storage or while in transit. To provide this pro-
tection, corrugated boxes must have sufficient
strength and durability.
Freight carriers have developed regulations, Item
222 for trucking and Rule 41 for rail, which
define the minimum requirements for corrugated
boxes to be accepted in the common carrier
surface transportation system. The original
method of defining box strength was Mullen, or
Burst strength testing. This method measures
the resistance of a box to an internal or external
burst/puncturing force. While useful in distribu-
tion environments with extensive handling or
impacts to the box, there is no correlation
method available to relate Mullen/Burst proper-
ties to stacking strength. In 1990, the corrugated
industry trade associations sponsored propos-
als, approved in 1991 by the National Motor
Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA), to revise the
carrier classification rules to include an alternate
certification called ECT or Edge Crush Test. The
ECT method was developed to provide a way to
determine the “strength” of a corrugated box as
it relates to stacking, or Box Compression
strength (also referred to as BCT or Box
Compression Test strength).
ECT is a more appropriate measure than Burst
when stacking strength is a primary design crite-
rion. Savings may be found for some packages
by using lighter-weight components with propor-
tionally higher stacking strength, thus reducing
freight costs and optimizing product protection,
without increasing damage claims.
This ECT Guide, developed by the Fibre Box
Association Technical Committee, will help you
evaluate specific paper and combined board
grades to assure optimum packaging solutions
when stacking strength is important. We’ve
included several industry ECT and BCT formulas,
performance data, and a few detailed examples.
This industry resource information will help all
users understand the ECT method for measuring
corrugated box strength.
FREIGHT RULE COMPLIANCE
In 1991, changes to the carrier rules to include
ECT as an alternate certification standard
brought much coverage and controversy to the
packaging industry. Most of this coverage con-
tinued to orient carrier rules as being the cus-
tomer’s standard, but this is an inappropriate
generalization. Just meeting the carrier regula-
tion minimums may not be enough to meet
customer needs. Upgrading a component or
two may be necessary to successfully protect
an item in the customer’s or its customers’ dis-
tribution environments, even if the size and
weight limits would call for something less. The
customer’s true standard is cost-effective pack-
aging that works in its distribution environment.
To ensure that your package will be covered
under the freight rules, each outer box shipped
should display the Box Manufacturer’s Certificate
(BMC) for the appropriate shipping requirement.
Edge Crush BMC
These rules may not be suitable for small parcel
shipments - contact your carrier for Small
Parcel packaging guidelines.
It is important to emphasize that the carrier
ECT requirements, ECT 32 for example, are
minimums, not averages, with testing done on
samples taken from finished boxes. The carrier
regulations cite TAPPI T 811 (the Wax Dip
method) as the official referee ECT test method.
Although the carriers require that only six indi-
vidual test results out of a sample of corrugated
board be averaged to complete an ECT test,
TAPPI requires a sample size of 10. The carrier
rules further require that only one of the
required six test values may be below the mini-
mum figure, and that the one low test value can
be no more than 10% below the minimum.
Common statistics dictate that the average
value must be higher than the minimum value.
The production process will determine the high-
er average needed on a finished box in order to
have confidence that you are meeting the mini-
mum requirements of the BMC. Since paper
properties and plant processes vary, no stan-
dard “minimum average” can be stated.
However, it is believed that this figure is in the
range of 10% to 13% above the BMC ECT
minimum of the finished box. 3
INDUSTRY COMMUNICATION
AND TERMINOLOGY
Over time, the terminology and minimum
requirements used in the carrier classification
rules for corrugated packaging have become
part of the language of the box industry, its cus-
tomers, and its suppliers. However, using the
carrier rules as standards for specification and
manufacturing is often inappropriate, as the car-
rier rules were not developed to entirely address
the customers’ needs. The rules were devel-
oped to minimize the carrier’s liability for freight
damage due to inadequate packaging.
Box customers who understand all the details of
their distribution environments, as well as the
relationship between edge crush test (ECT) and
finished box compression strength (BCT), may
wish to communicate with the box manufacturer
using ECT terminology for optimum performance
and value. Others may wish to discuss box com-
pression strength (BCT) requirements.
TWO COMMON TESTS FOR
MEASURING COMPONENT
(CONTAINERBOARD) COMPRES-
SION (EDGE STIFFNESS)
STRENGTH
The crush performance characteristic of liner-
board and corrugating medium is typically
expressed as a Ring Crush value or a Short Span
Compression (SCT) value. SCT is the proper
name for what is commonly referred to as STFI.
The crush performance values of linerboard and
medium relate to ECT but are meaningful to
paper mills manufacturing this containerboard
and the corrugator plants that purchase con-
tainerboard and run the board combinations
needed to produce the required ECT values.
Formulas to predict ECT based on paper edge
stiffness strength are provided later in this Guide.
WHAT IS ECT AND HOW CAN THE
RESULTS BE USED?
ECT measures a physical property of corrugated
board. The specimens used for testing are taken
from any piece of combined corrugated board (off
of the corrugator or from a finished box), as long
as the board is undamaged. ECT results from
both sheets and finished boxes can be used to
identify ECT losses in the manufacturing process.
ECT results from finished boxes, in addition to
being used to monitor compliance with the carrier
regulations, can be used with other box charac-
4 files, doublewall and triplewall.
teristics (caliper and perimeter) to predict the fin-
ished box compression, or stacking strength.
Alternatively, when box compression strength is
known (or specified), an estimate of the corre-
sponding ECT requirement can be calculated.
When predicting top-to-bottom compression
from corrugated board ECT, the impact of the
converting process must be considered (see
Manufacturing Considerations). ECT testing is
targeted for A, B, and C flute profiles, and sin-
glewall, doublewall, and triplewall board combi-
nations. If samples are taken from finished
boxes, “…specimens should not be taken from
obviously damaged areas and areas not repre-
sentative of the container as a whole” (TAPPI T
811 Section 6.1.1). Printed areas must be
included to the extent that they are representa-
tive of the box “as a whole”; however, samples
should not be taken from within an inch of score
lines, vent holes, stripping rubber indentations,
etc. It is important to note that the ECT mini-
mums displayed in the BMC refer to the mini-
ECT is typically expressed in Units of Force per Unit of
Length, Pounds per linear inch.
Example: 32ECT = 32 lb/inch in the U.S. =
5600 Newtons/linear meter
mum ECT value of the finished box. ECT testing
may also be done on sheets and intermediate
production for process control purposes.
There are several industry test methods available
for performing an ECT test, including the fol-
lowing current industry-accepted test methods:
• TAPPI T 811: Edgewise compressive strength
of corrugated fiberboard, the “wax dip”
method, uses different height samples for B
flute, C flute, and A flute/doublewall. (No
sample is defined for “small flute” profiles.)
This is the referee test method referenced in
the carrier regulations.
• TAPPI T 838: Edgewise compressive strength
using the “neck-down” sample method. A
common sample size is used for all flute pro-
• TAPPI T 839: Edgewise compressive
strength of corrugated fiberboard using the
“clamp” method. A common sample size is
used for all flute profiles, doublewall and
triplewall.
The wax dip method (T 811) is the referee
method for verification of BMC stamps, but
other methods may be easier to use in a box
plant environment. Note that the different meth-
ods do not necessarily produce the same
results. (See reference in Appendix C, page
15.)
Also see Appendix B for industry ECT predic-
tion formulas, the Cover for photos of the T 811
ECT method, and Appendix C for photos of the
T 838 and T 839 ECT test methods.
BOXES: COMBINED BOARD
& MANUFACTURING
CONSIDERATIONS
The common flute profiles are A, B, and C and
the typical combined board structures are sin-
glewall, doublewall and triplewall. There is dis-
cussion within the industry as to whether or not
ECT can be measured on “small flute” (E, F, G,
N, etc.) profiles. While T 838 and T 839 have a
common sample size for all flute profiles and
board structures, industry experts debate
whether the failure mode for “small flute” pro-
files is a crushing failure or a buckling failure
caused by the lower flexural stiffness of “small
flute” board combinations. Additional details on
flute profiles can be found in the “Package
Singlewall: The corrugated medium is glued between two
sheets of linerboard. Also known as Doubleface.
Doublewall: Three sheets of linerboard with two mediums
in between.
Triplewall: Four sheets of linerboard with three mediums in
between.
Engineering” section of the current (©
December 2005) edition of the Fibre Box
Handbook available at the “FBA Store” on the
FBA web site at www.fibrebox.org.
Before the box manufacturer can produce the
appropriate finished box, the impact of box
plant operations on ECT must be understood.
Each box plant will have manufacturing condi-
tions that can, to different degrees, affect the
integrity of corrugated board ECT and com-
pression strength of the finished box. Therefore,
the ECT of the sheets off the corrugator (or pur-
chased by sheet plants) will need to be higher
than the ECT required for the finished box, to
compensate for any ECT degradation caused
by the box plant manufacturing process.
Some performance attributes that can affect
ECT and/or Box Compression strength loss
include:
Affects ECT and BCT
• Performance of the raw materials
• Flute formation (including flute fracture)
• Finger lines/dry streaks
• Bonding/low pin adhesion
• Caliper loss and crushed flutes
5
 Affects BCT but not ECT
• Deep slots
• Manufacturer’s joint defects (skew,
score offset, adhesive coverage)
• Excessive warp
• Unbalanced board combination
• Window cutouts or access holes
Degradation loss can be expressed as a
percentage and can be measured or esti-
mated. Each segment of the manufacturing
process, from corrugating, corrugator
adhesive (formulation, preparation and
application), conveying, cooling, press
feed, printing/forming to final storage and
shipping can contribute to degradation and
strength loss. Some values to consider:
• Print and Feed Roll Crush -5% to -15%
(typical - much higher losses are
possible)
• Poor Corrugator Bonding -5%, or
more
• Poor Flute Formation -3% to -5%
• Excessive Slot Depth -3% to -15%
(BCT only)
Special Case
Low medium flat crush (CMT-Concora Medium
Test): There is no direct correlation between
medium flat crush strength and ECT or BCT.
However, corrugated board made with medium
with low flat crush may not have sufficient resist-
ance to withstand the crushing forces at nip
points in the box plant (press feed rolls, print
crush, feed rolls into or out of cutoff knives, etc).
The result will be caliper loss and loss in medi-
um intrinsic strength resulting in lower ECT and
BCT.
EXAMPLE:
Calculation for converting degradation loss:
Target ECT required: 50 lbs/inch
Degradation loss estimate: 10%
Theoretical ECT Needed:
Target ECT / (100% - ECT degradation)
50 / (100% -10%)
= 50 / .90

= 56 lbs/inch (approx.)

With 10% converting losses, 56 lb/in ECT strength

off-the-corrugator is needed to provide 50 lb/in ECT
strength after converting.

BOX COMPRESSION TEST

(BCT) AND STACKING
STRENGTH
The Box Compression Test (BCT) is the key
performance characteristic when boxes are
expected to maintain their structure while
stacked under load. Customers’ requirements

The TAPPI “Corrugating Defect/Remedy Manual” has addi-

tional details regarding correcting a wide variety of corrugat-
ing nonconformities including those that affect both ECT and
BCT. TAPPI’s “Corrugating Defect/Remedy Manual” can be
obtained via the TAPPI web site, www.tappi.org/bookstore.

6
for BCT are a function of the weight of the The main strength of a corrugated box is
boxed contents, the number of layers in the focused in the corners, as indicated by the
stack, use of pallets and pallet overhang, unitiz- representative percentages in the stylized
ing patterns, the number of units high the pack- image below.
age is stacked in the warehouse, warehouse
environment, time under load, and transporta-
tion and other distribution conditions. The BCT
measures the “Dynamic Compression Strength”
of a box by placing the box in a compression
tester with a constant rate of speed of the plat-
en until the box fails. The actual load on the
bottom box in a warehouse situation is called
the “Static Load.” The static load on a box will
be significantly less than the Dynamic
Compression Strength (BCT) of a box. The
Dynamic Compression Strength of a corrugated
box will deteriorate over time due to the various
“environmental factors” noted above.

To reduce the effect of environmental factors

customers should minimize the use of certain
practices which compromise the support char-
acteristics of the corners, including having filled
boxes overhang the edge of a pallet, using pal-
lets with only a few slats, and using “interlock-
ing” stacking patterns.
Methods for developing an environmental factor
for a specific distribution environment are dis-
cussed in ASTM D 4169 (see Standard Test
Methods and Practices, General Performance
To evaluate the impact of the unit load and Evaluation, “Safety Factor”); chapters 8, 9 and
unknown distribution conditions, etc., an “envi- 10 of Corrugated Shipping Containers, by
ronmental factor” should be developed. This George Maltenfort; and often in computer-aided
“environmental factor” is a number derived from
the relationship between box compression
strength at standard conditions (dynamic com-
pression), as compared to the load from trans-
portation and storage conditions that will be
applied to the box in its expected distribution
environment. The task of a corrugated designer
is to understand all of the environmental factors
and determine how much greater the dynamic
strength must be than the static/warehouse
load to successfully protect the packaged prod-
uct during its distribution life.

7
stacking strength and pallet pattern optimiza-
tion software programs. Any prior distribution EXAMPLE: Calculating the Target Box
history of the package can also be very useful Compression Test (BCT) Strength
for determining the appropriate level of protec-
tion needed.
Target BCT = Static Load x Environmental Factors

Environmental Factor Package weight = 25 pounds

Most corrugated packaging engineers and others who Boxes per layer = 10
design, sell, purchase or use corrugated boxes have Pallet weight = 75 pounds
traditionally referred to this “environmental factor” as a Layers per pallet = 5
“safety factor.” This “factor” is the result of combining Warehouse pallets high = 2 units high
the individual factors that affect the performance of
corrugated boxes under various environmental situa- Static Load = [(25 x 9*) + (75 ÷ 10**)] = 232.5 lbs.
tions that can arise as boxes are stacked, stored, trans-
ported, etc. There really is nothing extra as a “margin *9 layers of boxes on top of the bottom box. [(5 x 2) - 1 = 9]
of safety.” The various component factors have been ** Proportional load of the pallet weight carried by one box
developed from engineering and field studies. Thus,
the term “environmental factor” is more appropriate
than the term “safety factor.” There should not be a Considering the effects of stacking pattern, humidity and
need to add an additional “safety factor” if the “envi- storage time, and the required warehouse stacking strength
ronmental factors” have been properly applied. Users per box, the required top-to-bottom compression strength
of corrugated boxes should consult with their corrugat- would need to be:
ed supplier(s) to make sure that the environmental fac-
tors have been applied correctly with proper numerical
values. Target BCT = Initial Load x Environmental Factors
= 232.5 pounds x 1.17 x 1.63 x 2.00 ‡
= 887 pounds (when rounded)
‡ In the example above, the following environmental factors
have been used:

Variables Input Factor

Elements*
Stacking Pattern Column Stack 1.17
Max. Relative Humidity 85% R.H. 1.63
Storage Time 270 Days 2.00

*These numbers have been chosen only as an example.

Users of corrugated boxes should consult with their corru-
gated suppliers to make sure that the environmental factors
have been applied correctly with the proper numerical val-
ues. The appropriate environmental factor for individual situ-
ations should be determined carefully, according to the dis-
tribution environment of the boxes. Environmental factors
can be considered a percentage of loss that the box com-
pression strength will see during the corresponding trans-
port conditions and initial strength must be adjusted accord-
ingly. Calculating environmental factors for each environ-
mental condition will help tune the box strength to just the
right level and will reduce costs due to product loss or dam-
age during the warehouse and distribution cycle.

RELATIONSHIP OF ECT TO BCT

There are several semi-empirical formulas that
use “material test values” and can, with some
accuracy and repeatability, predict the final box
compression (BCT), or stacking strength. This
can be a valuable tool guiding selection of the

8
 right material for a packaging application. The
formulas can also be arranged to help predict
the needed ECT value, when the target BCT is
established, through testing or past experience.
The McKee Formula is recognized by the indus-
try as a tool for defining the relationship
between the box compression of regular slotted
containers (RSCs) and the edge crush (ECT) of
their corrugated board. The modified version of
the formula (substituting caliper for the original
bending stiffness component) is shown immedi-
ately below. The modified McKee formula is
used in popular stacking strength/pallet opti-
mization software.
9]
x been developed by various companies. Several
BCT = 5.87 x ECT x Caliper.508 x Perimeter.492
th
BCT = Box Compression Test Strength
5.87 = Constant factor
Caliper = Combined board thickness
Perimeter = 2 x Length + 2 x Width of box
ECT = Edgewise Compression Test strength
rs
A shorter version of the McKee Formula is:
BCT = 5.87 x ECT x √Caliper x Perimeter
This formula predicts approximately a 5% higher BCT
than the version initially presented immediately above.
Re-arranging the first equation to determine ECT:
BCT
s
Target ECT =
u- 5.87 x Caliper .508 x Perimeter .492
s-
McKee NOTE: The McKee formula was devel-
d- oped from “industry-average RSC boxes.” Use
of the formula for other types of boxes should be
further researched. For example, if the depth of
m- the box is less than 1/7 the perimeter, the
McKee formula should not be used as stated.
Further information is available in Paperboard
Packaging, “Compression Strength Formulas for
Corrugated Board,” by R.C. McKee, J.W. Gander
and J.R. Wachuta, August 1963, Vol. 48 Number
8, pp. 149-159.
Much additional, theoretical work has been
done in the 44 years since the McKee, et. al.,
work was published. However, the McKee
Equation has stood the test of time and pro-
vides a good starting point for estimating BCT.
SELECTING MATERIALS FOR
ECT REQUIREMENTS
In 1991, the Fibre Box Association’s ECT
Subcommittee surveyed FBA members to obtain
equations or relationships used to predict ECT
from known Ring Crush and SCT values of liner-
board and corrugating medium. The
Subcommittee worked with the Institute of Paper
Science and Technology and the Technical
Committee of the American Paper Institute
Containerboard Division to develop the most
appropriate relationships to predict ECT values,
based on available industry data. In the interim,
many additional ECT prediction equations have
are shown in Appendix B.
The prediction graphs on the following page
were developed using equations from Appendix
B, which showed the widest spread of results
using 2001 - 2006 paper industry performance
data. The general guidelines shown in the
graphs were developed for singlewall corrugated
board. Not all formulas were used to complete
the graphs. Formulas #4 and #5, while valuable
to their developers, do not explicitly include the
“Take-up” factor. Thus, their “Combined Ring
Crush” and “Combined SCT” values are not
comparable with those of the other formulas
shown in Appendix B.
It is critical to keep in mind that ECT can be
impacted by many factors. The values reflect a
range of ECT values for a given “total Ring
Crush” or “total SCT” value, meaning the com-
bined strength of all the containerboard. Note
that the medium edge stiffness value(s) to
achieve a total Ring Crush or SCT value must be
modified by the take-up factor(s) for the flute(s)
used. See the ‘ECT Calculation Examples’ sec-
tion (following page) for typical take-up values
for A, B, and C flutes.
The range of results from the different formulas
using common data can reflect differences in the
average roll stock Ring Crush and SCT values
used by each organization that developed a for-
mula or by proprietary factors known by those
organizations. Other factors causing variation in
ECT predictions are organizations’ use of “con-
stants” in their formulas and their preference to
try to fit a straight line into a plot of real world
data that is curved slightly upward as combined
edge stiffness increases.
9
 Edge Crush vs. Combined Ring Crush
Edge Crush (lbs./inch)
Edge Crush vs. Combined SCT
Edge Crush (lbs./inch)
Data used in the example ECT calculations and to create
the graphs was taken from the American Forest & Paper
Association’s “Containerboard Continuous Baseline
Reports” of January-June 2001, January-June 2004, and
July-December 2006.
ECT CALCULATION EXAMPLES
In the following examples, equations from
Appendix B are shown with typical Ring Crush
or SCT values. The Ring Crush and SCT values
presented are not necessarily representative of
a given plant’s paper supply, but are arbitrary
values that may be associated with the indicat-
ed grades. These calculations are included to
illustrate how to complete the formulas.
Comments on how to use ECT prediction equa-
tions follow the examples. Typical “Take-Up
Factors” (TU) used in the corrugated industry:
A flute = 1.54; B flute= 1.32; C flute = 1.43.
10
EXAMPLES
The examples below were not selected to apply a specific
formula to a given board combination. The examples are
included in this document to demonstrate the use of ECT
prediction formulas, in general. The examples shown and
many other examples calculated in the preparation of this
document, all showed results that fit within the
“High/Low” limits in the graphs shown in the left-hand col-
umn of this page.
Using Formula #2: Board combination = 35HP - M23 –
35HP, C flute
SCT values used: 35HP = 20.40 and M23 = 11.70
ECT = .66 [∑ SCT (liners) + TU x SCT (medium)]
ECT = .66 [(20.40 + 20.40) + (1.43 x 11.70)]
ECT = .66 (40.8 + 16.73) = .66 x 57.53 = 37.97
Using Formula #3: Board Combination = 56HP – M33 –
56HP, C flute
SCT values used: 56HP = 30.90 and M33 = 16.60
ECT = .786 [∑ SCT (liners) + TU x SCT (medium)] – 7.21
ECT = .786 [(30.90 + 30.90) + (1.54 x 16.60)] – 7.21
ECT = .786 (61.80 + 25.56) – 7.21 = (.786 x 87.36) – 7.21 =
68.66 – 7.21 = 61.45
Using Formula #6A: Board combination = K42 – M26 –
K42, B flute
Ring Crush values used: K42 = 85.70 and M26 = 37.20
ECT = .133 [∑ RC (liners) + TU x RC (medium)] + 12.00
ECT = .133 (171.40 + 53.20) + 12.00 = (.133 x 220.50) +
12.00 = 29.33 + 12.00 = 41.33
Using Formula #8: Board combination = 56HP – M26 –
56HP, C flute
Ring Crush values used: 56HP = 128.10 and M26 =
37.20
ECT = .165 [∑ RC (liners) + TU x RC (medium)] + 4.10
ECT = .165 [(128.10 + 128.10) + (1.43 x 37.20)] + 4.10
ECT = .165(256.20 + 53.20) + 4.10 = (.165 x 309.40) + 4.10
= 51.05 + 4.10 = 55.15
Knowing the edge stiffness (Ring Crush and/or
SCT) values of linerboard and medium will allow
a plant to predict ECT values using the formulas
in Appendix B or similar formulas. However, just
having a table of average Ring Crush and/or
SCT values is not the best way to look at a spe-
cific ECT or box compression result. Neither is
finding a formula that predicts “high” values
without understanding all of the factors involved
in how that particular formula was developed.
Once a plant has an ECT prediction formula
that they feel adequately represents their
 process and paper supply, a reasonable next
step would be to build a table of theoretical
ECT values for various board combinations.
The plant can then get creative and develop the
most cost-effective board combinations for
their customers, not only to meet minimum ECT
requirements, but for specific box compression
situations, as well.
Another use for ECT prediction formulas, partic-
ularly if the plant has an on-site testing lab with
-
appropriate TAPPI conditioning, or is willing to
send roll stock, combined board, and finished
box samples to an outside lab with those capa-
bilities, is to analyze test results and compare
those results with the predictions from the for-
mulas (both the ECT formula and the McKee
equation). The formulas should be completed
for SCT or Ring Crush to corrugator ECT, corru-
gator ECT finished box ECT, and finished box
ECT to box compression. An analysis following
this procedure, done a few times a year, can
pinpoint causes for ECT and box compression
problems.
A possible way to use the graphs on page 10 is
to calculate the target box compression
= strength (BCT) needed for a particular situation
(see “sidebar” example on page 8). Then solve
the McKee equation for the ECT needed to
achieve that BCT (see the third “sidebar” exam-
ple on page 9). This calculation is possible as
long as you know the box perimeter and have a
rough estimate of the board caliper you plan to
use – a mid-range caliper of the flute that the
plant plans on using is acceptable. Follow the
required ECT horizontally to the right on either
the combined Ring Crush graph or the com-
bined SCT graph until the required ECT line
intersects the mid-point line of the graph.
Dropping down to the horizontal axis gives the
plant an estimate of the combined Ring Crush
or combined SCT needed to meet the
required ECT.
0 wide variety of information relevant to this
The final step would be to plug in various com-
binations of linerboard and medium Ring Crush
or SCT values into the ECT formula the plant is
working with and determine the most cost-
effective board combination that will meet the
requirements of the situation. This last exercise
is quite theoretical. ECT and box compression
testing are strongly recommended to verify the
solution. If sample stock is available, sample
boxes can be produced and testing can be
done. Trial runs can also be made to obtain the
samples needed for verification testing.
An important fact to know regarding ECT for-
mulas is whether the particular formula a plant
is working with predicts ECT off the corrugator
or of the finished box. As noted earlier in this
document, to ensure that ECT is above the
minimum requirements, the finished box aver-
age, over time, should be in the range of 10%
to 13% above the minimum. Further, if a plant’s
ECT prediction formula was developed for
sheets off the corrugator, those plants should
be aware that converting operations can cause
ECT losses. While a well run converting opera-
tion with modern/well maintained equipment
and skilled operators can result in little or no
ECT loss, poorly maintained converting equip-
ment and/or operating practices can cause an
ECT loss of up to 15% or more.
SUMMARY
Corrugated boxes offer optimal containment
and protection for virtually all products in ship-
ping and distribution. The unique flexibility of
corrugated for custom design and specification
of strength characteristics allows users to opti-
mize each and every box for its intended appli-
cation. ECT is a highly useful specification for
box customers and manufacturers to under-
stand when ordering corrugated containers,
because ECT provides the most consistently
relevant measure of the box’s strength and
actual performance. Customers are encour-
aged to discuss ECT, BCT and design consid-
erations with their box suppliers rather than
specific board combinations, Mullen, Ring
Crush, or SCT values, to assure the best possi-
ble package performance in the shipping and
distribution environment.
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
More information can be found on the Fibre
Box Association website at www.fibrebox.org.
FBA members are able to access the technical
Frequently Asked Questions section where a
material is located.
Other information can be found in the Fibre Box
Handbook or in the brochure, "Understanding
the Performance Requirements of Your
Customer’s Packaging," jointly published by the
FBA and AICC. To order your copy of either
publication, go to www.fibrebox.org or call the
FBA at 847-364-9600.
11
 APPENDIX A - MOISTURE
EFFECTS ON PAPERBOARD
CONDITIONING
Paperboard and corrugated combined board
are primarily made from organic wood fibers.
As such, they are affected by changes in tem-
perature and humidity. Humidity or moisture
content can have a great impact on ECT
strength and ultimate box stacking perform-
ance. Material test results are affected by the
conditions present during the test and also by
the exposure history of the sample (i.e. mois-
ture hysteresis - see below).
As a rule, testing facilities for corrugated, par-
ticularly those doing referee testing, should fol-
low TAPPI T402 “Standard Conditioning and
Testing Atmospheres for Paper, Board, Pulp
Handsheets and Related Products.” Paper is
hydroscopic and absorbs or gives up moisture
depending on the relative humidity, and, to a
much lesser extent, temperature, of the atmos-
phere in which the paper is placed. Further,
paper is subject to hysteresis. When the envi-
ronment changes, the equilibrium moisture
content of paper in the new environment will
be different depending on whether the paper is
going from a wetter to a drier atmosphere or
vice versa. To minimize the hysteresis effect,
TAPPI T402 requires that samples be pre-con-
ditioned in a hot, dry atmosphere for 24 hours
and then brought to standard conditions from
the “dry” side over a second 24-hour period.
Most test procedures for corrugated are mois-
ture sensitive and this is particularly true for
those relative to this brochure: BCT, ECT, Ring
Crush and SCT. It is frequently required that
ECT and box compression testing (BCT) be
performed in real time, and not after an
extended period of preconditioning and condi-
tioning. The practical procedure in these cir-
cumstances is to conduct tests in some type
of air conditioning to keep ambient conditions
as stable as possible and within some reason-
able range. Moisture content can be measured
using a very accurate scale (balance) and an
oven or by using an instrument combining a
scale/infrared heating element specially
designed for this purpose. Correction tables
are available to calculate the “conditioned”
BCT once the moisture content is known.
Another suggestion is to record and track ECT
values for common board combinations and
look for trends.
12
After proper conditioning, boxes typically have moisture contents
between 7% - 8%. As a result, various methods have been devel-
oped to approximate the ECT results on a box that has not been
conditioned, using an assumed target moisture content of 7.5%.
The illustration below, derived from multiple sources, highlights
the estimated effect of moisture content of the specimen on the
ECT value that will be obtained when tested outside standard
conditions. There is passable agreement among various sources
with the estimates for moisture levels above 7.5%. However, the
various estimates diverge for moisture levels below 7.5%. Thus,
estimates using this approach of moisture-corrected ECT levels
with initial moisture measured at less than 7.5% are less reliable
than those at higher moisture levels. That said, as long as the
moisture content is >5% and <15%, the following approximations
might be made:
AF (Approximation Factor) = (% Moisture Content -7.5) x (0.0845)
Approximate ECT (ECT @ 7.5% moisture content) = (1 + AF) x
(Measured ECT)
For Example:
If measured ECT = 50 lb/in and measured moisture content =
9.3%
Then: AF = (9.3 – 7.5) x (0.0845) = 0.1521
Approximate ECT = (1 + 0.1521) x (50) = 57.6 lb./in
OR:
If measured ECT = 50 lb/in and measured moisture content =
5.7%
Then: AF = (5.7 – 7.5) x (0.0845) = -0.1521
Approximate ECT = (1 – 0.1521) x (50) = 42.4 lb/in
The relationship between moisture and box compression
strength (BCT) is qualitatively similar to the relationship between
moisture and ECT. As such, the above graph may be used to get
a ballpark estimate of the effect of moisture on either strength
parameter, provided the moisture content is in the range spanned
by the data (~5-15%).
References:
The 0.0845 figure is an average of data derived from circa 1960’s
data developed during box compression studies vs. relative
humidity studies conducted by the USDA Forest Products Lab in
Madison, WI, and moisture correction factors currently used by
large manufacturers of corrugated shipping containers.
nts APPENDIX B - APPENDIX C -
vel-
en BCT AND ECT FORMULAS TESTING METHOD EXAMPLES
%. This appendix is intended to serve as a general ref-
erence for the equipment required to perform vari-
e
ous paper, board, and package tests. For each test
BCT FORMULAS: (listed alphabetically), a short description of the test
s
e Modified McKee Formula: Top-to-Bottom is provided as well as references to the relevant
, Compression (BCT) = 5.87 x ECT x Caliper.508 x
standards (TAPPI and/or ASTM), followed by a list of
s Perimeter.492
required equipment. Many paper and board proper-
e Short McKee Formula: BCT = 5.87 x ECT x √Caliper x
ties are also very sensitive to the sample/specimen
√Perimeter
ns orientation. Care must be taken in sample prepara-
Modified McKee rearranged to solve for ECT:
tion to assure proper specimen preparation and
ECT = BCT Target / (5.87 x Caliper.508 x Perimeter.492)
alignment when necessary.
The general form of the formulas is ECT = a (liner
45) strength + TU medium strength) + b where a and b are
constants fit to the data.
PAPER TESTING FOR ECT
ECT Prediction Formulas:*
Basis Weight
1. ECT = .63 [∑SCT (liners) + TU x SCT (medium)]
T 410 [lbs/1000 ft2]
2. ECT = .66 [∑SCT (liners) + TU x SCT (medium)]
3. ECT = .786 [∑SCT (liners) + TU x SCT (medium)] - Basis weight is a measure of the mass of paper
7.21 for a given area. This test requires an accurate
4. ECT = .633 [∑SCT (liners)] + 1.03 [SCT (medium)] balance/scale and the ability to accurately
+.62 measure the area of the sample. It is important
5. ECT = 1.57 [∑RC (liners)] + .321 [RC (medium)] + to try to use samples of reasonable size to
3.93 average out small-scale sample variability.
6A. ECT = .133 [∑RC (liners) + TU x RC (medium)] + Basis weight is typically reported in #/msf
12.00 (pounds per thousand square feet).
(For board combinations through 42 - XX - 42)
6B. ECT = .217 [∑RC (liners) + TU x RC (medium)] - Caliper/Thickness
6.00
T 411 [mil, 0.001”]
(For board combinations greater than 42 - XX -
42) A variety of methods exist to easily measure the
7. ECT = .15 [∑RC (liners) + TU x RC (medium)] + 9.36 caliper of a paper or combined board sample.
The simplest instruments are manually operated
8. ECT = .165 [∑RC (liners) + TU x RC (medium)] + 4.10
and have a standard mass as the foot or anvil.
It is important to ensure that the measurement
TU = Take-Up Factor for medium (May vary based on area (foot size), lowering speed, and pressure
the corrugating rolls used by the box maker - Not used are all within the requirements of the specifica-
in formulas #4 and #5)
tion, as changes in those parameters can
RC = Ring Crush impact the measured value.
SCT = Short Span Compression

* There are many ECT prediction formulas in the indus-

try. Companies’ basic assumptions about the average
Ring Crush and/or SCT values they work with result in
the differences. The eight formulas above are represen-
tative of the many, usually proprietary, formulas used by
en companies in the industry.
get ** Note: Some of the formulas were developed using
only C flute data, others with only singlewall data, and
ned others with singlewall and doublewall data. Those using
those formulas should be cautious if A flute, B flute, or
doublewall results don’t fit within the limits shown in the
graphs on page 10.
0’s

in
y

13
 Moisture Content Short Span Compression (SCT)
T 412 [%] T 826 [lb/in]
It is often important to know the moisture con- SCT (short-span compressive testing) is replac-
tent of paper and board since it affects their ing Ring Crush in some evaluations. However,
strength properties. The traditional method the two tests probe very different physical prop-
involves careful drying in a drying oven and erties, at different length scales in the paper.
sealing in pre-weighed glass containers, then Short span compression samples typically fail at
weighing the material on a precision balance. the fiber level rather than as a bulk material
It is often easier to use a moisture balance that property. Much like Ring Crush, SCT is very
can provide sufficient accuracy. sensitive to cutting and directionality, as well as
moisture.
Ring Crush
T 818/T 822 [lb/6 in]
Ring Crush testing quantifies the bulk material
strength of a paper sample. Failure in Ring
Crush sample testing typically occurs through
some combination of compression and buck-
ling. In addition to sensitivity to moisture, test
values depend critically on accurate cutting
(size and directionality) of the sample to be
tested. Punch die cutters for sample cutting are
highly recommended. Performance of the Ring
Crush test requires a set of rings and a small-
scale crush tester, preferably with a load cell
and a rigid support.

Combined Board testing for ECT

Basis weight, combined board caliper, and
board moisture are measured in the same way
as they are measured for paper. However, for
caliper testing a different instrument may be
required to accept a thicker board.

PURCHASE A TAPPI STANDARDS SITE LICENSE

Any current TAPPI Standard or the complete set of
either Test Methods or TIPs can be purchased from
TAPPI. If you desire company-wide access to complete
and continually updated TAPPI Standards information,
you may purchase a TAPPI Standards Company Site
License. This is the only way to make sure that every-
one at your company will have any-time, online access to more than 500 individual Test Methods and TIPs.
Most importantly, it helps your company avoid copyright infringement by allowing your employees to legally
print, share and discuss this important information as they need it. No special software is required. Company
Site License pricing is based on either number of employees or number of locations. Find out which would be
most beneficial for your company by contacting Eric Fletty at TAPPI, efletty@tappi.org or 1 770-209-7535.

14
ECT (Short Column) Box testing for BCT
T 811, T 838, T 839 [lb/in] T 804, ASTM D642 Dynamic or
Edge crush testing requires a crush tester much D4577 Static [lb]
like Ring Crush testing above, and special sam- A wide variety of machines can run box
ple cutters to ensure that the loaded edges are compression tests. These machines vary in size
parallel. Additionally, depending on the test
by the size of the load they can handle. These
method selected, the test requires guide blocks
(T 811, T 838), hot plates and wax (T 811), spe- machines are similar in concept, but larger in scale,
cial circular sample cutters (T 838), and/or spe- than the crush testers used for performing the ECT
cial holding fixtures (T 839). The wax dip and Ring Crush tests.
method (T 811) is the referee method for verifi-
cation of BMC stamps, but other methods may
be easier to use in a box plant environment.
Note that the different methods do not neces-
sarily produce the same results. (Benjamin
Frank, Corrugating International, August 2003,
and Corrugated Today, May/June 2006.)

T 839 clamp method T 838 neck-down method

APPENDIX D - TESTING EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS

The following alphabetically-listed companies supply one or more pieces of equipment
to meet the needs of the testing protocols cited above. This list is not intended to be
complete or an endorsement of any company or any product.

Cole Parmer www.coleparmer.com

Coy Labs www.coylab.com
Denver Instrument Co www.denverinstrument.com
E.J. Cady & Company www.ejcady.com
Emerson Apparatus www.emersonapparatus.com
Fisher Scientific www.fishersci.com
Gurley Precision Instruments www.gurley.com
Lansmont www.lansmont.com
Liberty Engineering www.libertyengineering.com
Lorentzen & Wettre USA www.lorentzen-wettre.com
Mettler Toledo www.mt.com
Ohaus Corporation www.ohaus.com
Techlab Systems www.techlabsystems.com
Technidyne Corp www.technidyne.com
Testing Machines Inc. www.testingmachines.com
Thwing Albert Instrument Company www.thwingalbert.com

15
 The Fibre Box Association acknowledges the efforts of its Technical Committee, outside reviewers,
its Communication Committee, and others in the preparation of the Edge Crush Test Application
and Reference Guide for Combined Corrugated Board. A special thanks is made to the ECT Guide
Revision Team:

Ron Schmitz International Paper Work Group Chair 2002 - 2004

Brian Walker Green Bay Packaging Work Group Chair 2005 – 2008
Dave Carlson Smurfit-Stone
George D’Urso Georgia Pacific
Richard Etra Norampac
Benjamin Frank Packaging Corporation of America
Rich Soderberg Fibre Box Association FBA Technical Service Director

FBA
Three Important Reasons to Belong
FBA Statistics: FBA Knowledge
Insight to Action. Network: Together FBA Committees:
Key industry statistics and We Win. Corrugated United.
data provide information
Attending industry forums Working together we can
to help you plot your
and networking with peers, accomplish great things
marketing strategy
both independent and for our industry, and help
while benchmarking
integrated, provides assure its prosperous
studies provide metrics
unlimited opportunities future.
to help you be more
to learn and grow.
competitive.

Fibre Box Association

25 Northwest Point Boulevard, Suite 510
Elk Grove Village IL 60007
847-364-9600
16
www.fibrebox.org