Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39274595›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Investigating the Effect of Perforations on the Load-Bearing Capacity of Cardboard Packaging.

Kacper Andrzejak, Damian Mrówczyński, Tomasz Gajewski, Tomasz Garbowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kacper AndrzejakWerner Kenel Sp. z o.o., Mórkowska 3, 64-117 Krzycko Wielkie, Poland.
Damian MrówczyńskiDoctoral School, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8735-3607
Tomasz GajewskiInstitute of Structural Analysis, Poznań University of Technology, Piotrowo 5, 60-965 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4292-0417
Tomasz GarbowskiDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9588-2514

Funding

narodowe centrum badań i rozwoju POIR.01.01.01-00-0060/20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of perforation patterns on the compressive strength of cardboard packaging is a critical concern in the packaging industry, where optimizing material usage without compromising structural integrity is essential. This study aims to investigate how different perforation designs affect the load-bearing capacity of cardboard boxes. Utilizing finite element method (FEM) simulations, we assessed the compressive strength of packaging made of various types of corrugated cardboards, including E, B, C, EB, and BC flutes with different heights. Mechanical testing was conducted to obtain accurate material properties for the simulations. Packaging dimensions were varied to generalize the findings across different sizes. Results showed that perforation patterns significantly influenced the compressive strength, with reductions ranging from 14% to 43%, compared to non-perforated packaging. Notably, perforations on multiple walls resulted in the highest strength reductions. The study concludes that while perforations are necessary for functionality and aesthetics, their design must be carefully considered to minimize negative impacts on structural integrity. These findings provide valuable insights for designing more efficient and sustainable packaging solutions in the industry.

Indexed as

box compression testcorrugated cardboardfinite element methodperforationsstrength analysis

Identifiers

PMID39274595
PMCPMC11396172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.