82 ECT vs 90 ECT: side-by-side numbers
82 ECT is usually a double wall grade and 90 ECT a triple wall grade, so the comparison here pairs BC double wall with AAC triple wall. Together the higher ECT and thicker board give about 51% more estimated compression strength.
Estimated compression at 10 sizes
| Inside, in | 82 ECT BC | 90 ECT AAC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 × 6 × 4 | 1,351 | 2,038 | +687 lbf |
| 10 × 8 × 6 | 1,532 | 2,310 | +779 lbf |
| 12 × 12 × 12 | 1,769 | 2,668 | +899 lbf |
| 14 × 10 × 8 | 1,769 | 2,668 | +899 lbf |
| 16 × 12 × 10 | 1,910 | 2,882 | +971 lbf |
| 18 × 12 × 12 | 1,977 | 2,983 | +1,005 lbf |
| 18 × 18 × 18 | 2,166 | 3,268 | +1,101 lbf |
| 20 × 16 × 14 | 2,166 | 3,268 | +1,101 lbf |
| 24 × 18 × 18 | 2,340 | 3,529 | +1,190 lbf |
| 24 × 24 × 24 | 2,501 | 3,773 | +1,272 lbf |
Boxes high at 30 lb per box
| Inside, in | 82 ECT | 90 ECT |
|---|---|---|
| 10 × 8 × 6 | 31 | 47 |
| 16 × 12 × 10 | 39 | 58 |
| 24 × 18 × 18 | 47 | 71 |
Column stacked for 30 days with Packgent's default 40% storage loss (an assumption): ⌊BCT × 0.6 ÷ 30⌋ + 1.
Choosing between them
Pick the lower grade when the stack is short, the load light or the box is used once. Move up when boxes sit in storage for weeks, see humid warehouses, are interlocked or overhang the pallet, because each of those cuts usable strength. The stacking calculator shows which grade your conditions need.
Sources
- Foster, G. (1997). "Boxes, Corrugated." In Brody & Marsh (eds.), The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-06397-5 (table reproduced in Wikipedia, "Corrugated fiberboard")
- Packaging Corporation of America: Profiles with a purpose
- McKee, Gander & Wachuta (1963), Paperboard Packaging 48(8)
Last reviewed . See all sources and how Packgent computes.