AC double wall vs AAC triple wall: side-by-side numbers

AAC triple wall is 55% thicker than AC double wall (0.531 vs 0.344 in nominal). At the same ECT, the McKee formula rates a AAC triple wall box 24% stronger in compression; the trade is in size, crush resistance and print surface.

Side by side

AAC triple wall is 0.188 in thicker than AC double wall. On a 12 × 10 × 8 in box that makes the outside 0.38 in longer and wider and 0.56 in deeper, and at the same ECT the McKee estimate for AC double wall is 80% of the AAC triple wall figure.

	AC double wall	AAC triple wall
Walls	double	triple
Nominal caliper, in	0.3438	0.5313
Flutes per foot	—	—
OD added to L and W, in	0.688	1.063
OD added to depth, in	1.031	1.594
McKee strength index, same ECT	58.6	72.9

Same box, both boards

Inside, in	BCT at 44 ECT, AC	BCT at 44 ECT, AAC	Boxes per pallet, AC	Boxes per pallet, AAC
10 × 8 × 6	909	1,130	119	112
16 × 12 × 10	1,133	1,409	32	32
24 × 18 × 18	1,388	1,725	6	6

44 ECT is used on both sides only to isolate thickness; in practice the two boards are made to different grades. Pallet: 48 × 40, loaded to 60 in, column stacked.

Where each fits

AC double wall

Highest McKee estimate of the double walls at the same ECT
Bulky: outside dimensions grow fastest
Availability depends on plants running A flute

AAC triple wall

By far the highest McKee estimate here, though McKee was fitted on smaller boxes, so treat bulk-bin numbers with care
Heavy and stiff; needs equipment that can score thick board
Common in gaylords rather than cases

More comparisons

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 2026-10-27. See all sources and how Packgent computes.