Influence of Stiffeners for Improving the Compressive Strength of Ventilated Corrugated Packages Using Finite Element Modelling Technique

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled: "Influence of Stiffeners for Improving the Compressive Strength of Ventilated Corrugated Packages using Finite Element Modelling Technique" is partly in line with the Sustainability journal. The topic presented is up-to-date and important. The article is based on FE modeling. The topic is worth publication, but before it requires some major changes, such as:

Abstract

• Include the problem statement at the beginning of the abstract.
• Line 10: "The primary aim..." Do you have other objectives? Please be clear.
• Line 13-18: "The scope of reduction in material utilization for manufacturing the boxes has been looked upon without compromising the basic requirements. Further, the concept of stiffener has been introduced as a load-bearing enhancement feature. It will help establish a rationale and enable the corrugated fibreboard manufacturers and consumers to improve the understanding of the behavior of such structures and help to check for the cost utilization, avoid overdesign and further mitigate the failures in practical applications." This sentence is too vague. Please rewrite and include the proper methodology of your study.
• Line 18-21: "It was found that a 3-ply box configuration with a full-depth ventilation slot with panel stiffener can serve as a potential candidate for the replacement of the current box constituting of 5-ply panels recommended in the context of Indian standards." Is this your conclusion or results? It seems like there is no result in the abstract. Please include results from the FEM as well.

 

Keyword

• Are Indian standards crucial as the keyword? Suggest adding other important keywords.

 

Introduction

• The manuscript is sent to Sustainability. However, no sentence relates the study to the sustainability aspect. Please relate the study and its importance to the sustainability aspect.
• Lack of recent studies. Please add recent publications as suggested below:

Basri, M. S. M., Nor, M. Z. M., Shamsudin, R., Tawakkal, I. S. M. A., Ghani, N. H. A., Kamarudin, K. M., & Mustafah, A. M. (2021). Effects of Different Fluting Medium Geometries on Von-Mises Stress and Deformation in Single Fluted Board: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Advances in Agricultural and Food Research Journal, 2(1).

Garbowski, T., Gajewski, T., & Grabski, J. K. (2021). Estimation of the compressive strength of corrugated cardboard boxes with various perforations. Energies, 14(4), 1095.

Fadiji, T., Ambaw, A., Coetzee, C. J., Berry, T. M., & Opara, U. L. (2018). Application of finite element analysis to predict the mechanical strength of ventilated corrugated paperboard packaging for handling fresh produce. Biosystems Engineering, 174, 260-281.

• Please remove 1.1. since you only have one sub-section.
• Line 33-36: Please cite, "Presently, the use of corrugated board has become ubiquitous, from the packaging of fresh agricultural products to its most recent utilization as a material to construct beds for use in covid treatment centers and even in Olympic 2021 residential spaces."
• Line 39: Please cite properly. Is [3] only refer to wooden crates?
• Please clearly mention the novelty of the study.

 

Materials and Methods

• Line 335-336: "It was published in March 1987 and was reaffirmed in October 2019." Is it important?
• Table 2 provides the height of the flutes. What about the pitch?
• Figure 4 is not well defined as the boundary condition. Ux=Uy=Uz=0 is the edge or surface of the package? Or at the bottom part of the flute? Please show them precisely.
• Line 383: Any justification on why 4% is chosen besides following Han el al.'s philosophy?
• Line 384: Outer and inner boxes are shown clearly in Figure 3. However, panels for the inner and outer boxes are nowhere to be found. Please label them in Figure 3 as well.
• Line 408: Please justify why 4.9mm is chosen and not 5mm?
• Figure 4: Include the applied pressure/load as well.

 

Results & Discussions

• Line 435: "The increase in the dimensions of the slot...". Increase by how many %?
• Line 420-421: "Horizontal ventilation slots generate more stresses as compared to vertically placed slots." Please include reasoning the stresses generated in horizontal ventilation slots are higher.
• Line 437-438: "This material saving can be realized with the high magnitude of boxes manufactured per year." Any citation? If not, it is regarded as an assumption and not the result.
• Figure 6(b): Why is the max stress formed at the corner of the slot?
• Line 450-451: "..., we have tried to estimate the effect..." We refer to who? Please do not use "we" in the article journal. Please rephrase the sentence. Correct for the entire manuscript.
• Line 453-456: "From a general perspective, it can be implied that as less material is available to resist the applied load, the deformation will tend to increase when we use a lesser number of plies in the system, in general, under the application of a fixed load and same boundary conditions." Sentence too long. Please rephrase.
• Table 5: Any justification on why 61.78% panel stiffener and 59.07% edge stiffener are studied?
• Line 555-557: "This is likely because placing the stiffener above the ventilation slot enabled to restrict the bulging out the side panels due to the top-to-bottom loading over the top panel of the box." Please relate the reasoning with stress distribution as well.

 

Conclusion

• Please include important results from the finite element analysis.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Response to the comments can be seen in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work authors have worked on the improvement of the compressive strength of the corrugated packages.

I find this work suitable for the publications after minor revisions.

I have following comments:

1. Abstract must be improved, the focus must be on the obtained results. As in current form some basic information should be cut down and possibly be added in the intro part of the manuscript
2. the introduction of part the manuscript is too large and vague. Please be possibly short as well as specific and within the scope of the theme of the manuscript.
3. The text in lines (207-210) does not seem to belong "Materials" section of this manuscript, would be good if it is adjusted in intro part.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have tried our best to respond to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the response and revised manuscript, much effort has been given by the authors in correcting the manuscript. Most of the comments have been answered to the satisfaction of the reviewer. Although the english language can be further improved, this manuscript is suitable for publication.