A Study of package drops in global distribution environment

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses

Thesis/Dissertation Collections

1997

A Study of package drops in global distribution

environment

Donald Appleton

Follow this and additional works at:

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended Citation

A STUDY OF PACKAGE DROPS IN A GLOBAL DISTRIBUTIONENVIRONMENT

By

Donald J. Appleton

A Thesis

Submittedto the

Departmentof

Packaging

Science CollegeofApplied Scienceand

Technology

inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirements

forthedegreeof

MASTEROF SCIENCE

Rochester Instituteof

Technology

Department of Packaging Science

College of Applied Science and Technology

Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester, New York

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

M. S. DEGREE THESIS

The M.S. degree thesis of Donald J. Appleton

has been examined and approved

by the thesis committee as satisfactory

for the thesis requirements for the

Master of Science Degree

Thomas

L. Howath

Stephen

B.

Buice

John M. Fin

COpy RELEASE

A STUDY OF PACKAGE DROPS IN A GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION ENVIRONMENT

I, Donald J. Appleton, hereby grant permission to the Wallace Memorial Library of RIT to

reproduce this thesis in whole or in part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use

or profit.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstand

foremost,

IwouldliketothankThomas L. Horvath andStephen R. Pierce

MS.,

from Eastman Kodak

Company

fortheirencouragement andsupport of methroughout this

study, aswellastheentire graduate program.

Steve,

throughhiscontinuedlong-term

passion for

Packaging

Science,

servedtospark_{my interest in}enrollmentandcompletion of theprogram. Tom hasgiven me_unwavering support and worked_{very hard behind}the

scenestoenablethis_opportunitytohappen.

IwouldalsoliketothankSteve foruse ofhis data recording devicesand wealth of

knowledgeand global_contacts, without whichthis_study would nothave beenpossible.

Iwanttoexpress_mygratitudetoJohn

Siy

for hisparticipation on_mycommittee andhis

support and encouragement overtheyears.

Iwouldliketo thankMark E. BrooksfromthePEGDtest

laboratory

for hisworkontest

fixture

fabrication,

test shipment_execution, andeventsorting.

Iwanttoexpress_myappreciationtoMerilee

Ritter,

MS. from Eastman Kodak

Company

for herstatisticalanalysis ofthedatacollected.

Ialsowantto thankMelissaMannionfor

helping

me navigatethroughMicrosoft Word

Version6.

Iwouldliketo thankDr. Harold J.

(Pete)

Raphaelfor hisworkin establishingthe

Packaging

Scienceprogram atRIT. Inaddition, Iwouldliketo thankhim for_convincing

me, in

1980,

topursue a carrierin

Packaging

Science.

Finally,

last but certainlynot

least,

Iwouldliketo thank_myparentsRalph E. andJean S.

DEDICATION

Thisthesis isdedicated to_{my family:}

Kathy,

Teddy,

and

Kelly

Appleton,

whohave hadto

put_upwith numerous sacrificeswhileIhavepursuedthis goal. Withouttheir

love,

support,understanding,and_compromises, Iwouldnothave been abletosucceed.

A STUDY OF PACKAGE DROPS IN A GLOBAL DISTRIBUTIONENVIRONMENT

By

DonaldJ. Appleton

ABSTRACT

Thefocusofthis _studywasto compileandinterpret

drop

heights and

drop

frequenciesdata forsmallparcel packages_movingthrough theEastman Kodak

Company

global distributionnetwork. Theneedforthis_study arosefromtheinclusionof

drop

height probabilitycurvesinto Kodak's shippingtestsforpackaged product_{weighing less} than _{100 lb. Kodak packaging}engineers suspectedthe

drop

heights included inthe

probability curvesweretoohigh in

drop

heightandtoo_{many in}

frequency

when compared totheactualdistributionenvironment. The data forthis _studyresultedfrom dozensoftest

shipments_using

dummy

-loadpackagesthroughoutthe Kodakglobaldistributionnetwork.

Thetestshipments were conductedintheUnited

States, Europe,

andAustralia. Thetest

packages were equipped with a_{drop-height recording device}called aSAVERtorecord whena

drop

occurredandfromwhatheightthepackagewasdropped. Data fromthe

recorder was

downloaded,

"real"

events were sorted outfromeventsthatwere nottrue

drops. Once sortingwas_{completed, the}

"real"

datawas analyzed_utilizingvarious

statisticaltechniques. Theresults oftheanalysisledto thedevelopmentofdata-derived statisticaltestplansbasedontheactualfield-measured data. Theresultsofthis experiment, whencomparedto the_probabilitycurve_{currently inuse,}showthat the

drop

heights

outlinedinthe_probabilitycurvearetoohighandtoo_many are calledfor. Thisexperiment will serveasthebasis fornew_shippingtestsbasedon actualfieldmeasurements. The field data indicatesthat thecurrenttest_{may have led}to_overtestingand_{overpackaging}of our

products. Thesefindings

identify

an_{opportunity for}waste reductionas well as anoverall reductioninexpenditureforpackaging.

CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL II

COPY RELEASE Ill

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IV

DEDICATION VI

ABSTRACT VII

CONTENTS VIII

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

BUSINESS CLIMATE 1

SHIPPING TEST PROCEDURE OPTIONS 2

REASON FORSTUDY 5

probabilitycurves 5

STUDY ASSUMPTIONS: 6

STUDY OBJECTIVES: 7

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

DEFINITIONOF DISTRIBUTION ENVIRONMENT 8

SIGNIFICANCEOF DROP HEIGHT 8

LINKAGETO REAL WORLD EVENTS 9

3.0 TEST MATERIALS AND METHODS 11

MATERIALS 11

MeasuringDevice 11

Test Packages 12

METHODS 13

Data Collection 73

Figure1 _]4

Routes Measured 15

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 17

EUROPEAN DROP HEIGHT DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,STATISTICS 18

EUROPEAN DROPS PER TRIP DATASUMMARY,HISTOGRAM AND STATISTICS 20

AUSTRALIAN DROP HEIGHT DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,STATISTICS 22

AUSTRALIAN DROPS PER TRIP DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM, AND STATISTICS 24

LESS THAN TRUCK LOAD(LTL)DROP HEIGHT DATA_{SUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,}STATISTICS26

LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD_(LTL)DROPS PER TRIP DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,AND

STATISTICS 28

DOMESTIC PARCEL DROP HEIGHT DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,STATISTICS 30

DOMESTIC PARCEL DROPS PER TRIP DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,AND STATISTICS..32

ALL DROP HEIGHT DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,STATISTICS 34

ALL DROPS PER TRIP DATASUMMARY, HISTOGRAM, STATISTICS 36

TEST PLANS 38

Test Plan 1 38

Test Plan 2 40

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 2

RECOMMENDATIONSFOR FUTURE AREAS OF STUDY 43

6.0 REFERENCES 4 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

BUSINESS CLIMATE

Inthebusinessenvironment ofthe

90s,

pressures oncost controlandcontinuous

improvementare greaterthanever. Thesetwoareashave been identifiedasfertileground

toimprove corporate earnings. Companiesmustdomore with

less,

and whatwas"World

Class"

yesterday is

barely

acceptabletoday.

Theareaof package_{engineering has} not escapedtheinfluxofthesenew pressures.

Theoptimum packageisnolongerthe

lofty

goal of acorporation. It isnowthedemandof

everynew program. Thepackagehastodo all ofthe traditionalfunctionswhich packages

havealwaysperformed

(contain,

_protect,

identify,

_sell), butnowitmust executethese

functionsatlowerunit costsandwith more_{environmentally-friendly}materialthanever

before.

Packagedevelopmentcosts are also under scrutiny. Packagedevelopmentcycle

timesmustbereducedtoimprove projectdevelopmentcosts.

Moreover,

package

developmentcycleshave becomecompressedtomatch much shorter productdevelopment

cycletimes. _{The packaging}engineernolongerenjoysthe

luxury

of_goingthrough

numerousdesign iterationsonthe_waytoan effective_packaging solution.

Althoughnotasprevalentasinthe_early

90s,

the_packagingprofessionalis still

facedwith

building

environmental_{responsibility intopackaging}solutions. The grayarea

betweenenvironmental_realityandperceptionrages on. There

is, however,

little debatethat

sourcereduction/wasteavoidance

is,

both_{in reality}andperception,an effective

environmentaldesignapproach. Representative (not_{excessive) shipping}testsallowthe

packagingengineertodesignapackage_usingtheminimumamount of materials.

Reducing

thepercentageofproductdelivered damaged has alsobeenidentifiedas

an areatoimprovecosts. Acontinuousbalancemustbeconsidered_{between using less}

packaging (higherriskof

damage)

and_{reducing damage}rates(higheruse/cost of

packaging). The idealpackagesolution employs all oftheinherentruggednessofthe

product,plusjustenough_packagingprotectiontoequaltheforces andhazardsofthe

distributionenvironment.

Thereare obvious,and-not-so _obvious,costs of

delivering

damagedgoods toa

customer. Fromthepointdamage is

incurred,

all timeand_moneyspent on

design,

development,

manufacturinganddistributionexpendituresforthedamagedproductare

lost. Additionalcostsarerequiredfor distribution (forreturn _shipment)andreplacement

and/orrepairofthedamagedproduct. Somenot so obvious costs are customer

dissatisfaction,

channelpartner

dissatisfaction,

lossofbrandequity, andpotentialloss of futureproductsales.

SHIPPING TEST PROCEDURE OPTIONS

The packagingprofessionalhasaninfluenceon cost reduction and productdamage

rate

by

_conductingthecorrect andeffective_shippingtests onthepackage design.

Typically,

packagedesignsmust_successfullypass a_shippingtest towards theendof

development,

which serves as a verificationofthepackagedesign integrity. Thereare several philosophiesonwhatdefinesa"correctand

effective"

shipping

test. Thephilosophiescanbe broken down intothreebroadcategories:

Integrity

Testing,

General Simulation andFocused

Simulation1 .

An

Integrity

Testproceduredetermineswhetheror nottheproduct pluspackageis

strongenoughtowithstandtestconditionsthatareviewedas representative of generic

distribution hazards. In an

Integrity

Test,

the_packagingengineerneedstoknow littleor

nothingaboutthespecific _shippingenvironmentthepackage willtravel through. The

packagingengineer reliesonorganizationslike International Safe TransitAssociation

(ISTA)

to

develop

atestprocedurethat_effectivelychallengestheproductplus package

systemtoensuredamage-freereceipt oftheproduct. Thesetypesoftestsdonot represent

DennisYoung,"Strategic TransportPackagingPerformance:_LinkingProductandPackageEvaluationtoCorporate

real

(measured)

occurrences derived from field data.

Generally,

this typeof

testing

is very

conservative,

leading

tolowdamagerates attheexpense of_{higher packaging}costs. This

typeoftestprocedurehas beenused_{for many}years and_{is generally}used

by

companies

which_maynothavetheresourcesfor field datameasurement. In addition,itisagoodtest

proceduretouseif knowledge islimitedasto theparticularsofhowa company's product

gets toitscustomers.

A General Simulation Testprocedureis derived fromactualfield

data,

whichis

sorted andblendedtorepresenttheworst combination of conditions. Thefield

data,

however,

isnot_{necessarily from}

"your"

distributionenvironment. Avibration spectrum

fromenvironment

'A'

and shockinput fromenvironment 'B'

areblendedtogethertocreate

atestprocedure,whichtends tobeontheconservativeside. ASTM D-4169isan example

of aGeneral Simulation Test. Thistestis divided intothreeassurancelevelsto givesome

flexibility

to testintensity. Althoughnot as conservative as

Integrity

Testing,

ifthecorrect

assurancelevel isnotused,General Simulation may leadtohigherthanneeded_packaging

costs.

Any

given company's environment_mayneverbe as severe asthe"worstofthe worst."

Thesetypesoftestsare used

by

companies whichknow howtheirproducts are

shipped,but maynothavethe timeandresources requiredtoconduct afieldmeasurement study.

A Focused Simulation Testprocedure is derived fromoneparticular company's

actualfield data. On-boardshock_recorders,liketheSAVERfrom Lansmont

Corporation,

makeitpossibleforcompaniestomeasuretheirown specific _shipping

environment(s).

Measuring

devices likethe

SAVER,

weighing inat2.2 lb. and whosedimensions

are

5" x

3"

x

2",

are capable of_{recording "on}board"measurements ofthenumerousforces

which act uponapackageasitpassesthrough thedistribution environment.

Among

the

attributesmeasured are _{shock, vibration,temperature,} andtime. Oncemeasured, thedata

utilizing Focused Simulation isthat themeasuredfield datawill allow_packagingengineers

toknowthe _shippingenvironmentingreatdetail. Thistechniqueyields quantitativedataon

thenature ofhazards. This"real"datawill allowforcreationofarepresentative_shipping

testfora specific_environment,

leading

tooptimumpackage designs. The downsideto

Focused Simulationuseisthecapital andtimeexpenditure requiredtoconduct a_studyof

this type.

Among

othercosts, adata measuringand_{recording device}mustbeprocured,a

closed

loop

foroutbound andreturntripsmustbe_established, and_shippingchargesmust

bepaid. Anothermajor costinvolves

downloading,

_sorting,and

interpreting

data. Once

thatiscompleted statisticalanalysisofthedatamusttakeplace.

Clearly,

Focused

Simulationis notforeveryone.

Anexperienced_packagingengineer_maymake a reasonablejudgmentastofield

performance when evaluation of packagesdamaged fromthefieldare comparedto similar

typepackages_yieldingsimilarresultsfromthe testlaboratory. Thistypeof prediction

basedon an engineer's evaluationdoes have a certaindegreeofrisk.

However,

is

significantlymorecost effectivethenafullscalefieldstudy.

Thetruemeasure ofhowwella_shippingtestperformsistocomparetestedpackage

results with "real"

field data. Damageis definedaswhenthestresses of

handling

exceed

thestrength ofthepackageplusproduct.

Monitoring

theperformance of packagesinthe

field is extremely importantas no_shippingtestcan_absolutely,

fully

reproducefield

conditions. Anaccurate measureof_{field damage may}require

developing

adamage

reportingprocessandactive_{monitoring dozens} of shipments. Damageratesthatarebased

on apassive process of customer complaints andclaims_{for damage may be very low}when

comparedto theactualdamage

rate.2

;

Sheehan,Richard_"PredictingField Performance fromLaboratoryTesting"

REASON FOR STUDY

Generally,

shippingtests are comprisedoftwomajor components.

Vibration,

used

to simulateinputfromtransportationhazards

(truck,

plane,train,ship) and

Shock,

usedto

simulate inputfrom

handling

hazards

(drops,

kicks,

otherimpacts). The focus ofthis

study isontheshock portion

(Drop

Test)

oftheEastman Kodak

Company

_shippingtestfor

small parcel products shippedina_varietyofdistributionenvironments. The shock

(drop)

measurements willberecorded

by

a_{data recording device in}theformof equivalent

drop

heights. This studywas selected as atopicbecauseoftheintroductionofthe

"Probability

Curvesfor

Handling

Shocks"3

(shown

below)

intotheTS _{21 1 shipping}testused

by

Kodakforpackaged product under 100pounds.

probabilitycurves

Probability

Curves CO tu _: u C CT "53 x a o _ a 60

0.01 %_{Prob ability}

50

40

^

^

0.1 % _Probability

% Probe

30

^

20

s

1.0%_Probability

V

I

I

10%_Probability

10

50 100 150

Weight

(lbs.)

200

'_{Richard K.}

Brandeburg, Ph.D.,Julian_{June-Ling Lee, Ph.D.,}Fundamentalsof_PackagingDynamics p.106(MTS Systems).

Althoughtheintroductionofthis curvewasdonewiththebest

intentions,

nodata

wasever_{introduced serving}as alink between Kodak's distributionenvironment andthe

probabilitycurve.

Moreover,

skepticismincreasedasefforts directedtowards the

curves'

publisherhave failedtoyield_{any hard data}used as abasisforthecurve. Thisproblemis

confounded

by

thefactthat thecurveisatleast 12years old and responsible partieshave

long

sincemoved on. Onequestionshowsuch a curvecouldbe developedwhen

consideringthe

technology

availabletomeasuredistributionenvironmentspriorto 1985.

In

fact,

theauthors _state,

"Unfortunately,

_{very little is known} aboutthe

drop

heightsand

shocklevelsencounteredin

distribution,

exceptthat_{every distribution}systemhasa unique

andcomplex

profile."4

This studywill serve asafoundation fora

truly

representative

drop

testportion of

Kodak's smallparcel_shippingtest. _{The shipping}testwillbecreatedtoreproducethe

dynamicswhich were

directly

measuredinthe_{field. A reality}check ofa goodtest

procedureisthe _abilitytoreproducedamageobservedinthefield

by

_runninga_shipping

testinthelaboratory. Ifthat

"reality

check"

isnot_{met, then thevalidity}oftheir_shipping

testmustbequestioned. Oncea good_shippingtestis_created,a connectioncanbemadeas

to the appropriatetypeandamount of_packagingmaterials neededtoprotecttheproduct.5

STUDYASSUMPTIONS:

1)

Hypothesis: The

"Probability

Curves for

Handling

Shocks"

usedintheKodak

Shipping

Tests arerepresentativeofour_shippingenvironment.

2)

Measurementoftheselected_shippingenvironments will yielddata

representativeofKodak'sglobaldistribution environment.

4_{Richard K.Brandeburg, Ph.D.,Julian}

June-Ling Lee, Ph.D.,Fundamentalsof_{PackagingDynamics (MTS Systems}

Corporation, 1985),p.103.

5

Sheehan,Richard "The ConnectionwithMaterialsandComponent_{Specifications",}IOPP Transpack'97.

3)

Futurelabandfieldverification

testing

and shipmentswillberequiredfor

absolute verificationofthe data.

STUDY OBJECTIVES:

1)

Inthecontext ofFocused

Simulation,

drop

heights and

drop

frequenciesthat

small parcel packages are subjectedtoin distributionenvironmentofEastman Kodak

Company

willbemeasured andrecorded.

2)

Throughstatistical data_analysis,regionaldifferences inthedistribution

environment and/orpackageweightinfluenceon

drop

heightand

frequency

willbe

determined. A determinationwillbemadeastowhethertheseinfluencesare significant

enoughto

justify

multipletestprocedures.

3)

Throughstatisticaldata_analysis,datawillbesortedtoofferassurancelevels

(low,

medium,

high)

which willlend

flexibility

to the testprocedurein matching

program/product requirements.

4)

Datawillbeusedas verificationofthecurrent_probabilitycurve or as a

foundation fora more representativetestprocedure_utilizingmore_accurate,

data-derived,

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Theconcept of_conducting

drop

testsoncompleted packagedesign isnotnewand

thereisconsiderableliteraturewrittenaboutthesubject. Aliteraturesearch reveals some

interesting

explanations _regardingtherationalefor shippingtestsandcorrelationtoreal

world events.

DEFINITION OF DISTRIBUTION ENVIRONMENT

It is importanttounderstandthatthe distributionnetworkis defined fromthepoint

thepackagedproductleavesthe_{manufacturing location}to thepointatwhichthecustomer

unpackstheproduct.

Products,

which aremoved

by

hand

(manually),

havethepotentialto

be droppedat_anypoint withinthedistributionnetwork. Manual

handling

creates an

opportunity for free fall drops fromarange ofheightsandfrequencies. Parcel

delivery

services moveandhandle very largenumbers of packages_every

day,

thus_creatingthe

potential for dropsthattransfershocksto thepackage. Theshockto thepackage,caused

by

a suddenhighrateof

deceleration,

istransferred to theproductinside thepackage.

This iswhendamageto theproduct_{may happen.}

SIGNIFICANCEOF DROP HEIGHT

Generally,

thenaturalheightto_carrypackaged productsas

they

movethrough

distribution iswaisthigh. Another influence on

drop

heights arebeltsystems and

conveyors usedtomove parcel packages_quicklythroughout thedistributionenvironment.

Theseobservationssuggest_{that process,}ratherthanweight,may playa criticalroll in

influencing

from how higha packageis dropped.

Theshock

(drop)

aspect ofdistribution hazardscreatestheneedforthe_packaging

designs andto_verifyanyproduct and/orpackagedesignchanges. It is widely believedthat theshockinput hazardcreatesthegreatestpotentialfor damagetothepackagedproduct.

LINKAGE TO REAL WORLD EVENTS

Observations have leadto the conclusionthatpackages arealmostneverdroppedin such a_way so the packageimpacts a surface_{completely flat. This is}caused

by

several reasons, such ascenter of_gravity andthe_way thepackageisreleased orfalls. This

characteristic_{becomes very important both from}adata interpretationandtestdevelopment

standpoint. A

truly

flat

drop

representsa more severe shockto theproductthandoesan

edgeorcorner

drop,

whicharemoretypicaloftherealworld. Althoughpureflat drops do

not

typically

take place, dueto their_{reproducibility in} a

laboratory

_situation,

they

serve asa

useful elementina_shippingtest.

Moreover,

becauseoftheir"worstcase"

nature,

they

build ina_{safety factor into shipping}tests.

"Real world"

dropsare

typically

randominnature,

dictating

that theproduct must

beprotected_equallyon all

faces,

as well ascornersand edges. "Real world"

drops may

alsooccurontoa_varietyofdifferenttypes of surfaces. These not_{only include}typical floors andtruck

beds,

butalso otherpackagesforexample,which_{may greatly influence} therateofdecelerationand_velocitychangevalues.

Again,

it is importanttoremember

these twocharacteristics arethecomponentsofproductdamage. Thepeakacceleration (G

level)

isnotthe _onlyelementofdamage. Theshapeoftheshock pulse

(trapezoidal,

sinusoidal,etc.) andtheshockdurationareimportantelements ofproductdamage. A trapezoidalpulseismore severethanasinusoidal pulsegiventhesame peakG leveland

duration. This is duetoanincreased "areaunderthe

curve"

or_velocitychange.

Fromapractical standpoint(withsome exceptions e.g. _{military packaging)}the packagingsystem cannotbeexpectedtoprotecttheproduct against

disastrous,

_extremely

6_{HewlettPackard Homepage:}

http^/w>v.corp.hp.com/publish/talkpkg/testing/section3Jitm.

rareevents.

Designing

to such ahigh levelof protection would_{certainly lead}toexcessive

costs and_packagingmaterials

used.7

7_{Hewlett PackardHomepage.}

3.0 TEST

MATERIALS

AND METHODS

MATERIALS

Measuring

Device

Anelectronicdata measuringand_{recording device is} oftenusedto gather

informationabout_{shock, vibration,}

humidity

and otherfactors inthedistribution

environment. Forthisstudy, theSAVER

by

Lansmont Corporationwas utilized asthe

in-package measuring device. Several datarecorderswere used

during

thecourseofthe

study. All deviceswere calibrated atthestart ofthe_studyand checked atthe

beginning

and

end of each

trip

toconfirm. TheSAVER was utilizedforthe_studynot_{only for its}small

size

(

5"

x

3"

x

2")

and weight(2.2

lb.),

which minimizesdetection in_{the test packages,}

butalsobecauseofits ability tomeasure and record a significant amount ofdata(several

megabytes)over a

long

period oftime (orseveral weeks).

Eachrecorder usedforthis_studycontainsatri-axial _{accelerometer,}which enablesit

tomeasure amplitude anddirectionof an event. Inaddition, it isableto measure when a

zero-Gcondition_occurs,which isa characteristicof adrop. Onceevents aredeterminedto

be "real,"the softwarebundledwiththeSAVER hasthe_abilitytodeterminetherelease

heightofthepackageaswell asimpactvelocity.

Test Packages

Thetestpackages_containing

"dummy

loads"

were intendedtoanddesignedtolook

like ordinaryproduct. The reasoning behindthiswas sothatthepackages would move

throughthedistributionstream as_normally aspossible,therefore_receivingmore

representativetreatmentand_recordingmorerepresentativedata.

Onepackageweighed 10lb andhad dimensionsof_{approximately}

12"

x

6"

x 10".

Thissize and weightis typicalofanumber ofKodakpackages,both forchemicalproducts

andsmall equipment products.

Thepackage didnotcontainproduct,containing insteadan appropriately-sized

woodenblockwith ahollowedout center sectioninwhichdatarecorder was placed. The

woodenblockwas sized suchthatseveralinchesoffoamcouldbeplacedaroundthe

woodenblocktoprotectthedatarecorderfromexcessive _shock,which_{may have}cause

damageto thedatarecorder. The foam doesnot affectthe_abilityofthedatarecorderto

accuratelyrecord

drop

heights. Thiswas confirmedinthe

laboratory

priorto _anyofthe

study shipments.

Asecond package weighed55 lband measured 10"

x 10"

x

10",

representative of

photochemical product.

The finalpackage weighed35lb andhaddimensionsof_{approximately} 12" x

12"

x

16",

representativeof acaseofKodakEktacolor Royalpaper.

Aswiththeother_{test packages, this test}packagedidnot contain product. Italso

contained an _{appropriately}sized woodenblockwith ahollowedout center sectioninwhich

adatarecorderwasplaced. Thewoodenblockanddatarecorder were placedintoa

corrugated carton complete withKodak Ektacolor Royalpapertradedress.

METHODS

DataCollection

Allofthe testunits were calibrated

by

themanufacturer atthe

beginning

ofthis

experiment. Thecalibrations wereconfirmedinour

laboratory

as asafeguard_check, and

were_periodicallycheckedthroughoutthecourse ofthisexperiment. Ifdiscrepanciesin

calibrationwere

discovered,

thedatarecorderinquestionwas takenout of service and sent

tobackto themanufacturerforrepair and/or re-calibration.

At thestart of_{every trip,}the

battery

ineachdatarecorder was

fully

_charged,the

unitturned_on, and_carefullyplacedintothe

dummy

loadpackage. Eachtest_package,was

subjectedtoaflat bottom "check drop"

fromaknownheightatthe

beginning

ofits

journey. Uponarrival atits

destination,

thepackage was once againsubjectedto aflat

bottomcheck

drop,

fromthesameheightasthefirst

drop,

beforethepackagewasturned

aroundtobeginareturntrip. Uponarrivalbackatthe

lab,

the testpackage wassubjected

to thefinal flat bottom

drop,

again atthesameheightastheinitial "check

drop",

beforethe

datarecorder wasdownloadedandtheunitshut off.

Thecheckdropswere_easytorecognizebecauseoftheirwell-formed

drop

[image:24.574.72.505.235.472.2]

signature and common

drop

height (Figure 1).

Figure 1

G'S COUJ

<

UJ

-I

UJ cc

REST

FALL

REST

TIME

Thecheckdrops servedseveral_{very important functions}

during

our study:

Thecheckdropsserved as markersthatdefinedeachtrip. A

trip

was definedas

either an outbound or return

leg

of a roundtrip.

Thecheckdrops servedasconfirmationthattherecorder was_workingthroughout

the trip.

Unfortunately,

onseveral_trips,the recorders were not

functioning

continuously.

Thisproblem wasidentified quicklythroughuse ofthecheck

drop

process.

Thecheckdropsserved as confirmationthattherecorders wereincorrect

calibration bothatthe

beginning

andtheend of eachtrip.

Routes Measured

Ourcustomerbase is

becoming

more global allthe_time,soitwasdecidedthedata

collectionmethodshouldbeplannedtoreflectthischaracteristic. Forthis study, theKodak

distributionnetworkwas divided up intothreemajor regions:theUnited

States, Europe,

andAustralia. Theseregions were chosenbecause

they

representtheareas wherethe

majorityof ourproducts aredistributedand effective contactsinthoseareashelpedmanage

testpackage receipt and shipment.

Themode oftransportation measuredwithinthis _studywastruck transportation.

The United Stateswas subdividedinto Less-than-Truckload

(LTL)

and smallparcel

categoriestomore_accuratelyreflectthe_way our products are shipped. The domestic small

parceldatawas gatheredfromshipmentsthatallbegan in

Rochester,

NYandwere shipped

tovariouslocationsthroughout theUnited States. The LTLshipmentswithintheUnited

States began in

Rochester,

NYandwere shippedto

Dallas,

TXand

Whitier,

CA.

The European datawascollectedfromshipmentsbetween Central Distribution

Centers

(CDCs)

intheEuropeanregion. The CDCsarelocated in

Chalon, France;

Harrow, England;

and

Stuttgart,

Germany.

The Australian datawas collectedfromshipmentsmadebetween Melbourneand

Sydney

viaLTL. Inaddition,localdeliverieswithin metropolitanMelbournewere also

included inthedatacollected.8

The datawas_{downloaded using}the SAVERsoftware upon returnto Kodak's

Package

Engineering

andGraphic Design

(PEDG)

testlabatKodak

Rochester,

_{NY. Once}

downloaded,

thedatawas sortedtodeterminewhich_{events were real and which were not.}

Using

thesignature check

drop

pulse (Figure

1)

as a_guide, aPEGD_{technicianwas trained}

8_{Stephen R}

Pierce, MS.,personal communications.

onwhattolook forto determinewhetheror nottheeventwascaused

by

areal

drop

ornot.

Typically,

fora_varietyofreasons,the_majorityof eventsmeasured weredeterminedtobe

caused

by

_somethingotherthan a

drop

andtherefore,notincluded. For_consistencyof

interpretation,

the sametechnicianwasusedtosortthedatafromallofthe trips.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

An AnalysisofVariance

(ANOVA)

was usedthroughout this _studyto

identify

and

isolatecharacteristics _affecting

drop

heightandfrequency. Forthe threedifferentpackage

weights included inour_study,therewasno evidencetosubstantiate package weight

having

a_strongcorrelationwith

drop

height. The data derived fromthedifferentpackageweights,

upto 55

lb.,

appearedtobe fromthesame datapopulation.

Itwasdetermined using ANOVA

however,

thateach sub environment or

"process"

had a_{strong influence}onboth

drop

heightand

drop

frequency. Theterm"process" means

themethod

by

whichthepackages werehandled. This

finding

is logical dueto the factthat

eachsub-environmentutilizeddifferenttools todistributeand movepackages. Tools such

as_{trucks, belt/conveyer belt}

heights,

loading

_techniques, andlevel ofpersonnel

training

vary significantly fromonesub-environmentto the

next.9

Theseconditions haveamajor

affect on

identifying

datapopulations.

Forthis reason, thedata forthis_{study is divided into four}categories:Domestic

(USA)

Parcel,

LTL

(USA),

Australia,

andEurope. Themethod oftransportationin both

AustraliaandEuropewasLTL. Forsimplicity, theheadings for AustraliaandEuropedata

will not reflectthis, however.

Whatfollowsonthenextseveralpagesisa_{compilation, summary,} andstatistical

summaryof allofthedatameasuredinourexperiment.

9_{MerrileeRitter, MS.,personal communications.}

EUROPEAN DROP HEIGHT DATA

SUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryoftheEuropean

drop

height data:

op Height

Frequency

Cumulative %

(inches)

(drops)

1 1 2.27%

2 10 25.00%

3 10 47.73%

4 5 59.09%

5 0 59.09%

6 6 72.73%

7 3 79.55%

8 0 79.55%

9 81.82%

10 84.09%

11 0 84.09%

12 86.36%

13 88.64%

14 90.91%

15 93.18%

16 95.45%

17 0 95.45%

18 0 95.45%

19 0 95.45%

20 1 97.73%

21 0 97.73%

22 0 97.73%

23 0 97.73%

24 0 97.73%

25 0 97.73%

26 1 100.00%

27 0 100.00%

28 0 100.00%

29 0 100.00%

More 0 100.00%

The

following

isaHistogramoftheEuropean

Drop

Heights:

CO a. o

cu

_

E 3

i-co in

Drop

Height

(inches)

The

following

isa statistical_summaryoftheEuropean

drop

heights:

Mean

(inches)

5.448864

Median

(inches)

3.28

Mode

(inches)

2.51

Standard Deviation

(inches)

5.420728

Range

(inches)

24.41

Minimum

(inches)

0.77

Maximum

(inches)

25.18

Count

(drops)

44

EUROPEAN DROPS PER TRIP DATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAMANDSTATISTICS

The

following

isthe _summaryoftheEuropean

Drop

per

trip

data:

)s/Trip

Frequency

(trips)

Cumulative %

1 0 0.00%

2 0 0.00%

3 0 0.00%

4 1 16.67%

5 2 50.00%

6 0 50.00%

7 0 50.00%

8 0 50.00%

9 2 83.33%

10 0 83.33%

11 1 100.00%

lore 0 100.00%

The

following

is aHistogramoftheEuropeanDropspertrip:

CO o. CD _ E ~ z 2 j 1.8 --1.6 --1.4 --1.2 --1 --0.8 --0.6 --0.4 --0.2 --0

--i m i1 'i1

7 __B__._jfljj

1 1 h H r

T 100.00% -- 90.00% -- 80.00% -- 70.00% -- 60.00% -- 50.00% --40.00% --30.00% --20.00% --10.00% --.00% --c\iootLoc_r-~coo50--CD O

Number of Drops

The

following

isastatistical _summaryoftheEuropean dropspertrip:

Mean

(drops/trip)

7.166666667

Median

(drops/trip)

7

Mode

(drops/trip)

9

Standard Deviation

(drops/trip)

2.857738033

Range

(drops/trip)

7

Minimum

(drops/trip)

4

Maximum

(drops/trip)

11

Count

(trips)

6

AUSTRALIAN DROP HEIGHTDATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAM, STATISTICS

The

following

isthe _summaryoftheAustralian

Drop

height data:

rop Height

Frequency

Cumulative%

(inches)

(drops)

1 0 0.00%

2 24 10.08%

3 25 20.59%

4 36 35.71%

5 22 44.96%

6 16 51.68%

7 24 61.76%

8 16 68.49%

9 8 71.85%

10 12 76.89%

11 14 82.77%

12 4 84.45%

13 11 89.08%

14 3 90.34%

15 2 91.18%

16 3 92.44%

17 2 93.28%

18 4 94.96%

19 4 96.64%

20 2 97.48%

21 1 97.90%

22 0 97.90%

23 0 97.90%

24 0 97.90%

25 2 98.74%

26 0 98.74%

27 1 99.16%

28 1 99.58%

29 1 100.00%

30 0 100.00%

More 0 100.00%

The

following

isaHistogramoftheAustralian

Drop

Heights: IS) o. o 40 35 30 25 --20 --CD 3 Z 1 0 5

0 H mjap.f1flfJfJ

Wjiflk

_{'i i i pi}

H-100.00% -- 90.00% -- 80.00% 70.00%

+

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% .00%

--co in h- co n ifl n a>i _{n in n a> cu}

t-t-!-i---CMCMCNC\ICM

_

Drop

Height

(inches)

The

following

is a statistical_summary oftheAustralian

drop

heights:

Mean

(inches)

Median

(inches)

Mode

(inches)

Standard Deviation

(inches)

AUSTRALIANDROPS PER TRIP DATA

SUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,

AND

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryoftheAustralian

Drop

per

trip

data:

)s/Trip

Frequency

Cumulative%

(trips)

1 0 0.00%

2 0 0.00%

3 2 6.67%

4 5 23.33%

5 2 30.00%

6 4 43.33%

7 2 50.00%

8 5 66.67%

9 2 73.33%

10 0 73.33%

11 4 86.67%

12 0 86.67%

13 0 86.67%

14 1 90.00%

15 1 93.33%

16 0 93.33%

17 1 96.67%

18 1 100.00%

19 0 100.00%

lore 0 100.00%

The

following

isaHistogramoftheAustralian dropspertrip:

(A

Q.

a>

E

3

CJ CO -<*

Number of drops

The

following

isa statistical_summary oftheAustralian dropspertrip:

Mean (dropsper_trip) Median (dropsper_trip)

Mode (dropsper_trip) Standard Deviation (dropsper

trip)

Range

Minimum (dropsper_trip) Maximum (dropsper_trip)

Count

(trips)

8 7.5

8

4.025778999

15 3 18 30

LESS THAN TRUCK LOAD

(LTL)

DROP HEIGHT DATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAM,

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryoftheDomestic

(USA)

Less ThanTruckload

(LTL)

Drop

height data:

rop Height

Frequency

Cumulative %

(inches)

(drops)

1 0 0.00%

2 18 4.77%

3 13 8.22%

4 16 12.47%

5 19 17.51%

6 21 23.08%

7 26 29.97%

8 30 37.93%

9 19 42.97%

10 20 48.28%

11 14 51.99%

12 17 56.50%

13 10 59.15%

14 12 62.33%

15 9 64.72%

16 17 69.23%

17 8 71.35%

18 9 73.74%

19 11 76.66%

20 4 77.72%

21 9 80.11%

22 8 82.23%

23 11 85.15%

24 7 87.00%

25 3 87.80%

26 12 90.98%

27 3 91.78%

28 5 93.10%

29 1 93.37%

30 1 93.63%

31 2 94.16%

32 3 94.96%

33 1 95.23%

34 0 95.23%

35 0 95.23%

36 2 95.76%

37 0 95.76%

38 2 96.29%

39 4 97.35%

40 3 98.14%

41 0 98.14%

42 1 98.41%

43 0 98.41%

44 0 98.41%

45 0

46 1

47 4

48 1

lore 0

98.41%

98.67% 99.73% 100.00% 100.00%

The

following

is aHistogramoftheLess Than Truckload

(LTL)

Drop

Heights:

100.00%

-- 90.00%

--80.00%

--70.00%

--60.00%

--50.00%

--40.00%

--30.00%

--20.00%

10.00%

.00%

cn n

t-ui

-- i- _{CM CM}

Drop

Height

(inches)

The

following

isastatistical_summaryoftheLess Than Truckload

(LTL)

drop

heights:

Mean

(inches)

13.77984085

Median

(inches)

11

Mode

(inches)

8

Standard Deviation

(inches)

9.6723898

Range

(inches)

46

Minimum

(inches)

2

Maximum

(inches)

48

Count

(drops)

377

LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD

(LTL)

DROPS PER TRIP DATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAM,

AND STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryoftheLess Than Truckload

(LTL)

dropsper

trip

data:

Dps/Trip

Frequency

Cumulative %

(trips)

1 3 5.36%

2 5 14.29%

3 4 21.43%

4 7 33.93%

5 6 44.64%

6 4 51.79%

7 4 58.93%

8 7 71.43%

9 1 73.21%

10 4 80.36%

11 2 83.93%

12 6 94.64%

13 2 98.21%

14 0 98.21%

15 0 98.21%

16 0 98.21%

17 1 100.00%

More 0 100.00%

The

following

isaHistogramoftheLess Than Truckload

(LTL)

dropspertrip:

i-cMn^mcDsooojOi-cMn^-ujCDN cd

---O

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

.00%

Number of Drops

The

following

isa statistical_summaryoftheLess Than Truckload

(LTL)

dropsper

trip:

Mean

(drops/trip)

Median

(drops/trip)

Mode

(drops/trip)

Standard Deviation

(drops/trip)

Range

(drops/trip)

Minimum

(drops/trip)

Maximum

(drops/trip)

Count

(trips)

6.732142857 6 8 3.777883349

16 1 17 56

DOMESTIC PARCEL DROP HEIGHT DATA

SUMMARY, HISTOGRAM,

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryofthedomesticparcel

drop

height data:

Drop

Height

(inches)

0

Frequency

(drops)

0

Cumulative%

0.00%

1 3 0.62%

2 20 4.77%

3 26 10.17%

4 36 17.63%

5 56 29.25%

6 53 40.25%

7 36 47.72%

8 43 56.64%

9 29 62.66%

10 20 66.80%

11 23 71.58%

12 21 75.93%

13 23 80.71%

14 6 81.95%

15 15 85.06%

16 13 87.76%

17 6 89.00%

18 7 90.46%

19 5 91.49%

20 11 93.78%

21 5 94.81%

22 9 96.68%

23 4 97.51%

24 1 97.72%

25 5 98.76%

26 3 99.38%

27 0 99.38%

28 2 99.79%

29 0 99.79%

30 1 100.00%

More 0 100.00%

The

following

isaHistogramofthedomesticparcel

drop

height data:

OW^IDCOOOI^CDCOOai^COCOO

---i-CMCMCMCMCMCO

Drop

Height

(inches)

The

following

isa statistical _summaryofthedomesticparcel

drop

heights:

Mean

(inches)

9.319502075

Median

(inches)

8

Mode

(inches)

5

Standard Deviation

(inches)

5.741629844

Range

(inches)

29

Minimum

(inches)

1

Maximum

(inches)

30

Count

(drops)

482

DOMESTIC PARCEL DROPS PER TRIP DATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAM,AND

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryofthedomesticparceldrops per

trip

data:

Ds/Trip

Frequency

Cumulative%

(trips)

0 14 8.05%

1 43 32.76%

2 33 51.72%

3 32 70.11%

4 28 86.21%

5 11 92.53%

6 4 94.83%

7 2 95.98%

8 1 96.55%

9 1 97.13%

10 2 98.28%

11 1 98.85%

12 0 98.85%

13 0 98.85%

14 0 98.85%

15 0 98.85%

16 1 99.43%

17 0 99.43%

18 0 99.43%

19 0 99.43%

20 1 100.00%

21 0 100.00%

22 0 100.00%

lore 0 100.00%

The

following

isaHistogramofthedomesticparcel dropspertrip: a <D sx E 3

FFFFFPI I I I Fl I I PI I I

CD CO O CM "t CD CO

100.0 -- 90.00 -- 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 .00% 0% % % % % % % % % o CM CM CM

Number of Drops

The

following

isa statistical_summaryofthedomesticparcel dropspertrip:

Mean

(drops/trip)

Median

(drops/trip)

Mode

(drops/trip)

Standard Deviation

(drops/trip)

ALL DROP HEIGHT DATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAM,

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryof all ofthe

drop

height datacompiledfromthefour

segments ofthedistributionenvironment:

Drop

Height

(inches)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Frequency

Cumulative %

47 48 More

4 99.90%

1 100.00%

0 100.00%

The

following

Histogram belowsummarizes all

drop

height data:

FPrfwmrffthllhfrl

100.00%

f

mCOWST-WOIONT-lfl CD

----CMCMCMCOCO't-^-o

Drop

Height

(inches)

-- 90.00%

80.00%

--70.00%

-- 60.00%

-- 50.00%

40.00%

--30.00%

-- 20.00%

-- 10.00%

.00%

The

following

isa statistical_summaryofthe"All

Drop

Height"

data:

Mean

(inches)

10.26809933

Median

(inches)

8

Mode

(inches)

8

StandardDeviation

(inches)

7.844748503

Range

(inches)

47.23

Minimum

(inches)

0.77

Maximum

(inches)

48

Count

(drops)

1047

ALLDROPS PER TRIP DATA

SUMMARY,

HISTOGRAM,

STATISTICS

The

following

isthe_summaryof allofthedropsper

trip

datacompiledfromthe

foursegments ofthisKodak distributionenvironment measuredinthisstudy:

ops/Trip

Frequency

(trips)

Cumulative%

1 29 13.81%

2 31 28.57%

3 29 42.38%

4 33 58.10%

5 21 68.10%

6 12 73.81%

7 8 77.62%

8 13 83.81%

9 6 86.67%

10 6 89.52%

11 8 93.33%

12 6 96.19%

13 2 97.14%

14 1 97.62%

15 1 98.10%

16 0 98.10%

17 2 99.05%

18 1 99.52%

19 0 99.52%

20 1 100.00%

More 0 100.00%

The

following

Histogramsummarizes allthedatacompiledfromthefoursegments

ofthisKodakdistributionenvironment measuredinthisstudy:

(0 Q. a : I-^ o i-Oi J3 E 3 Z 35

j

30 --25 20 1 5 -|

1 0 -|

5

0

f.

wfPfPPPP

|pp| pp|

_p|

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% .00% t-COWNCjj'-C'jBSO) CD ---o

Number of Drops

The

following

is a statistical_summaryofthe"all dropsper

trip"

datacompiledfrom

thefoursegmentsoftheKodakdistributionenvironment measuredinthis study:

Mean

(drops/trip)

Median

(drops/trip)

Mode

(drops/trip)

StandardDeviation

(drops/trip)

TEST PLANS

Twotestplanshavebeen derived fromthis study. The firsttestplanis derived

from data

looking

at eachdistributionsub-environmentindependently. Examinationofthe

datasetshasrevealedthatthedatapopulations aredependentuponprocess.

Again,

the statistical analysis ofthedatarevealstheprocesshas a much greater

affect on

handling

thandoestheweightofthepackage,atleast pertainingtotheweight

rangewehaveexaminedinthis study.10

The

following

testplans arebasedona_raw,realdatamodelasopposedtoa

descriptivetheoretical statisticalmodelapproach. The large datasamplesizewithinthis

study allowsforsoundtestplansto_{be derived using}thisapproach. Thisapproach will

leadtoatestplan_yieldingtrueand reallifeestimations.

Test Plan 1

Thistestplan wasderived fromanalysis ofeach_shippingenvironment

(process)

independently

ofeach other. Thisplan wouldbeused_{only if}thedestinationontheproduct

shipments areknowntobeconfinedtoone region oftheworld. Thistestplangivesthe

packagingengineer and_qualityassurancethe

flexibility

of

testing

toa specific

environment. Itshould_{only be}used whentheproductteamhasa_{very high degree}of

certaintythat theirproductregionwillnotchange.

This testplanalsorevealsthemost severe

handling

environment(LTL). This

procedure_{may be}used

by

programs,which duetoproduct_{value, quantity, etc., feel}more

comfortable _subjectingtheirpackagestoa more severe

(conservative)

test.

10_{MerrileeRitter, MS.,}personal communications.

Assurance Level Environment Environment Environment Environment

low

(50%)

Domestic Parcel LTL Australia Europe

number ofdrops 4 7 8 8

drop

distribution one at8" threeat

8"

three at4" fourat

3"

one at 13" oneat 10"

two at7" threeat6"

one at 16" one at 16" one at 11" one at 25" one at 30" one at 26:" one at 48" oneat 13" one at 28" medium

(84%)

number ofdrops 7 11 12 10

drop

distribution three at6" threeat5" threeat 4" threeat 2" two at 8" threeat 7" threeat 6" threeat 3" oneat 13" twoat 10"

twoat 8" oneat 4" one at 30" one at 16" twoat 11"

oneat6"

one at 26" one at 17" oneat 7" oneat 48" one at 28" oneat 25" high

(99%)

number ofdrops 9 15 16 13

drop

distribution two at5" threeat

5"

fourat

4"

threeat

2"

twoat6" threeat 7"

threeat6" threeat 3"

twoat 8"

threeat

8"

fourat8" twoat 4" one at 13" twoat 10" threeat 11"

two at6"

one at 16" twoat 16" one at 17"

one at7"

one at 30" one at 26" one at 48" one at 28" one at 25" Statistical forabovetest

average#of 3.3 6.7 8 7.2

standarddeviation 2.8 3.8 4 2.9

median#ofdrops 3 6 7.5 7

average

drop

9.4 13.8 7 5.4

standarddeviation 5.8 9.7 5.2 5.4

median

drop

8 11 5.7 3.3

maximum

drop

30 48 28 25

Thesecondtestplanistheresult of a complete compilation and statistical analysis

of all

drop frequency

and all

drop

heights from US smallparcel,

European,

Australian, and

LTL datapooledtogether. Thistestplan wouldbeused whenthedestinationofthe

packageisnot specifictoone region oftheworld.

Test Plan 2

;(approximate_probability) Environment

low

(50%)

Allcarriers

number ofdrops 5

drop

distribution one at

4"

oneat 8"

one at 13"

one at26"

one at 39"

medium

(84%)

number ofdrops

drop

distribution twoat

4"

twoat6"

twoat 8" one at 13" one at 26" one at 39" high

(99%)

number ofdrops

drop

distributiondrops

13

twoat 4"

twoat6"

twoat8"

twoat 10"

one at 13"

one at 16"

one at26"

one at39"

one at48"

Theprevioustestplans arebasedonthe

following

descriptivestatistics:

average#ofdrops 4.99

standarddeviationofnumber ofdrops 3.7

median#ofdrops 4

average

drop

height

(inches)

10.27

standarddeviationof

drop

height 7.8

median

drop

height

(inches)

8

maximum

drop

height

(inches)

48

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Theevents measuredandthedataproduced

during

this_{study (for}packages

weighing 55 lband_under)disprovethenullhypothesiswhich statesthe

drop

height probabilitycurvesarerepresentativeoftheKodak distributionenvironment. The highest

drop

heightmeasuredinthis study, which consistedof over 1000measured

drops,

was48

inches. The48"

drop

_onlyoccurred on one out ofthe210tripsmeasuredforthisstudy.

By

wayof_comparison, atthe0.01%levelonthe_probabilitycurve, apackaged product

weighing 25 lborlessmustbe dropped from

70"

ten times. _{This clearly}pointsto ahigh

potentialforoverpackaging.

This study also

demonstrates,

forthepackage weights(10lb.-55

lb.)

researchedin

this study,distributionprocess hasa greater affect on

drop

heightthanpackage weight

does. This is verymuch_contraryto traditional

thinking

around package weight and

drop

height.

Traditionally,

the heavier_{the package, the}lowerthe

drop

height.

The probabilitycurves_{may be}ofusetoothers whoare not ableto gatherrealfield

data,

but

they

are_clearlytooseveretorepresenttheKodak distributionenvironment

measured inthisstudy.

The findingsare significantbecause

they

suggestthe_{overpackaging}ofKodak

productsinorderto_successfullypassthe test

drop

heightsrequired

by

the_probability

curves.

Moreover,

the_{overpackagingmay have led}tomoreiterations and costs

during

the

packagedevelopmentprocessaswell,andtomore wasteforourcustomersto manage.

The findings

identify

an_{opportunity for}package wastereduction as well as an overall

reduction inexpenditureon_packaging

by

thecompany.

Thenext_{step is}toputthis_study andtestplanstogooduse as thebasisof a new

drop

testStandard

Operating

Procedureintheformofacorporatetestprocedure and

standard.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE AREAS OF STUDY

Possibleareasforfuturework withinthe scope ofthis_{study include:}

1)

Confirmationofthe

drop

testeffectivenessthroughfieldshipment studies.

2)

Further studyof packagescloserto the 100lbrangeasless manual

handling

takesplace

during

movementsof suchlargerpackages.

3)

Further studyof orientation andwhich surfaceofthepackage ismost

likely

to

besubjectedtoa

drop

impact. It mayalsobeusefultomeasurehowdifferentpackage

design features affect orientation(e.g.labelplacement etc.).

4)

Measurementofenvironmentsin emergingmarkets such astheFar

East,

India

andtheformer Soviet Union.

6.0 REFERENCES

Richard K.

Brandeburg, Ph.D.,

Julian

June-Ling

Lee, Ph.D.,

Fundamentalsof

Packaging

Dynamics (MTS Systems

Corporation,

1985).

Dennis

Young,

"Strategic Transport

Packaging

Performance:

Linking

ProductandPackage

EvaluationtoCorporate

Objectives",

IOPP Transpack '95. Hewlett PackardHomepage:

http://www.corp.hp.com/publish/talkpkg/testing/section3.htm.

Richard

Sheehan,

"Predicting

Field Performance from

Laboratory

Testing"

Current Trends in Protective

Packaging

ofComputers.

Richard

Sheehan,

"The ConnectionwithMaterials andComponent

Specifications",

IOPP

Transpack '97.

Merrilee

Ritter, MS.,

Quality

Assurance

Statistician,

personal communications.

Stephen R.

Pierce, MS.,

Senior

Packaging

Engineer,

Certified

Packaging

Professional,

personalcommunications.