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

AAC triple wall is 89% thicker than BC double wall (0.531 vs 0.281 in nominal). At the same ECT, the McKee formula rates a AAC triple wall box 37% stronger in compression; the trade is in size, crush resistance and print surface.

Side by side

AAC triple wall is 0.25 in thicker than BC double wall. On a 12 × 10 × 8 in box that makes the outside 0.5 in longer and wider and 0.75 in deeper, and at the same ECT the McKee estimate for BC double wall is 73% of the AAC triple wall figure.

BC double wallAAC triple wall
Wallsdoubletriple
Nominal caliper, in0.28130.5313
Flutes per foot——
OD added to L and W, in0.5631.063
OD added to depth, in0.8441.594
McKee strength index, same ECT5372.9

Same box, both boards

Inside, inBCT at 44 ECT, BCBCT at 44 ECT, AACBoxes per pallet, BCBoxes per pallet, AAC
10 × 8 × 68221,130119112
16 × 12 × 101,0251,4094032
24 × 18 × 181,2551,72566

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

BC double wall

  • Nearly twice the caliper of C, so much stronger in McKee at the same ECT
  • Heavier and bulkier: more board weight and larger outside dimensions
  • The B ply on one face gives a better print or wear surface

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