4.6 Article

Simplified Modelling of the Edge Crush Resistance of Multi-Layered Corrugated Board: Experimental and Computational Study

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16010458

关键词

edge crush resistance; edge crush test; finite element analysis; analytical model; experimental data; corrugated cardboard

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The edge crush test is commonly used in the corrugated packaging industry to measure the edge crush resistance of a sample. It is widely used for specifying the board by producers and describing the load capacity of the packaging. The ECT value can be estimated from analytical and numerical models based on the paper's parameters, and virtual analysis of new boards can be conducted before manufacturing.
The edge crush test is the most popular laboratory test in the corrugated packaging industry. It measures the edge crush resistance of a sample in the cross-fiber direction (CD), also known as the ECT index. This parameter is widely used for the specification of the board by its producers. It is also utilized in most analytical formulas describing the load capacity of the packaging. On the other hand, the ECT value can be estimated from both analytical and numerical models based on the basic parameters of each constituent paper. Knowing the compressive strength in CD (commonly known as SCT) and the elastic properties of the individual layers, the sample geometry (i.e., the period and height of the corrugated layer), as well as the boundary conditions, the ECT value can be calculated. This is very useful as new boards can be virtually analyzed before being manufactured. In this work, both detailed numerical models based on finite elements (FE) methods and very simple analytical (engineering) models were used for the ECT calculations. All presented models were validated with experimental data. The surprising consistency and high precision of the results obtained with the simplest approach was additionally analyzed in the study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据