A useful drop test examines a clearly defined product-and-pack system. Assemble the cardboard divider with the box, protection and closure intended for production. Agree the acceptance criteria and distribution context before testing. Without these inputs, a package that looks intact after a handling trial cannot establish the required level of protection.
Select a protocol from the distribution journey
Describe whether the pack travels individually or on a pallet, passes through distribution centres and undergoes particular handling stages. The laboratory can use those facts, together with mass and geometry, to advise on a protocol. Do not apply a drop height borrowed from another project without checking its purpose and scope.
ISTA distinguishes several families of procedures, including screening and distribution simulation. FEFCO also lists a vertical impact test by dropping for corrugated packaging. Similar names do not make these methods interchangeable. Agree the procedure, sequence and assessment criteria with the laboratory responsible for the work.
Freeze the configuration being tested
Prepare a complete bill of materials: product, product closure, individual protection, divider, base, top, outer box and box closure. Identify versions and batches where available. Photograph the internal arrangement before closing and the completed pack afterwards. A different tape, base pad or box may change the configuration and should be apparent in the record.
The prototype should represent the production material and assembly. If a component is temporary, identify it and state the limitation. A result from a sample reinforced by hand cannot be transferred automatically to a different production pack. The purpose is to validate a repeatable definition, not a specially prepared specimen that is unrepresentative of normal work.
Use a representative product
Prefer the actual product in shipping condition. For a filled container, both mass and distribution of contents matter. If a substitute is needed, define it with the laboratory and retain its description. An object with equal mass but different geometry or stiffness may produce different contact with the internal protection.
Inspect and identify products before testing. Record existing defects and perform relevant functional checks. This makes it easier to attribute subsequent damage to the trial. Otherwise, a pre-existing scratch may be blamed on a divider, or a function that was already faulty may incorrectly be assumed to have passed the initial condition check.
Write acceptance criteria before seeing the result
Define what must remain satisfactory: product integrity, function, leakage where relevant, decoration and commercial presentation. Also state acceptable packaging condition. A marked box may have performed its protective role, while a nearly pristine one can contain a damaged item. Assessment therefore needs several levels, not a single external visual judgement.
Connect each criterion to an inspection method. Who opens the pack? Which sides are photographed? What product checks follow? Which defects constitute failure? Agreeing these points in advance reduces the temptation to relax a decision after time and money have been invested in a prototype or test programme.
Examine the divider after the sequence
Inspect strips, slots, cell geometry and contacts with the outer box. Look for displaced products, local tearing and rub marks. Use a cell-position diagram to locate damage. A defect concentrated in one area may suggest a particular orientation or an uneven support condition worth investigating.
The cardboard divider is one part of the protection system. Remaining intact does not prove that all damaging contact was prevented. Deformation does not automatically mean the pack failed either. Interpret its condition alongside the product and pre-agreed criteria, then investigate the likely mechanism before changing the board grade.
Make comparisons interpretable
When comparing two designs, keep other factors as consistent as practical: product, box, closure and preparation. Identify exactly what changes. Results become difficult to interpret if divider material, box dimensions and product quantity are all altered simultaneously without a documented purpose.
Agree specimen quantities and the treatment of differing outcomes with the laboratory. One successful test does not describe all manufacturing and operating variation. It may be a useful development step that needs further evidence according to risk and customer requirements. State that scope in the conclusion instead of turning a single favourable result into a general guarantee.
Link the result to the next decision
The report should explain whether the configuration is approved, needs modification or requires further investigation. Assign actions to named project roles and identify the version that will be reviewed next. If a design change is proposed, record which contact or failure mechanism it is intended to address. This avoids a cycle of repeated tests with poorly defined reasons for altering the pack.
Keep any conditions attached to approval visible in the production specification. An arrangement validated for one case quantity or product version should not quietly become approval for a broader range. The test record is most useful when purchasing and production can identify exactly which configuration it supports.
Retain the essential evidence
- Selected protocol and its relevance to distribution.
- Bill of materials, versions and assembly photographs.
- Initial product condition and any substitutes.
- Acceptance criteria and inspection methods.
- Detailed results and located damage observations.
- Decision, required changes and retesting conditions.
For prototype preparation, share the route and product criteria with Estic-Maillot. The designer can assess the divider within its complete pack while the laboratory defines the appropriate test conditions.
Frequently asked questions
Can an initial trial be carried out internally?
An internal trial can support development when conditions are controlled and recorded. It should not be described as equivalent to a formal procedure that was not actually followed.
Is another test needed after changing the divider?
Review the change’s effect on clearance, contacts and force paths. The designer and laboratory can determine which checks are required before transferring approval to the revised configuration.