A comparison of the performance tests used for furniture packaging

ISTA Procedure 2C and two options in NMFCC Item 181, stacked vibration and compression and vibration in separate tests, were compared to determine the equivalency of common U.S furniture packaging performance tests. Containers constructed of two different corrugated fiberboard specifications were evaluated; Box A: a 32 lb/in. (5.6 kN/m) ECT rated board with a basis weight combination of 35HP/26/35HP, and Box B: a 200 psi (1378.95 kPa) Mullen rated board with a basis weight combination of 42/26/42. Ten corrugated fiberboard containers of each board type were tested following each of the test protocols. After testing, the contents were removed and the residual compression force at failure and deflection at failure of the containers were measured. These data were compared to the compression force and deflection at failure of control samples for the two board grades tested. Results showed that Item 181 Method A produced significantly different residual compression force at failure when compared to Item 181 Method B and Procedure 2C for both boxes. Item 181 Method B and Procedure 2C were not significantly different. Also, the two boxes showed significantly different residual compression force at failure results for each of the test protocols studied. The percent change in compression force at failure based on control samples, however, was not significantly different between the boxes studied.