ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Investigating the Effect of Perforations on the Load-Bearing Capacity of Cardboard Packaging.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.