E flute vs F flute: side-by-side numbers
F flute is 50% thinner than E flute (0.031 vs 0.063 in nominal). At the same ECT, the McKee formula rates a F flute box 29% weaker in compression; the trade is in size, crush resistance and print surface.
Side by side
E flute is 0.031 in thicker than F flute. On a 12 × 10 × 8 in box that makes the outside 0.06 in longer and wider and 0.09 in deeper, and at the same ECT the McKee estimate for F flute is 71% of the E flute figure.
Same box, both boards
| Inside, in | BCT at 44 ECT, E | BCT at 44 ECT, F | Boxes per pallet, E | Boxes per pallet, F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 × 8 × 6 | 387 | 274 | 144 | 144 |
| 16 × 12 × 10 | 483 | 342 | 40 | 40 |
| 24 × 18 × 18 | 592 | 418 | 6 | 9 |
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
E flute
- Thin, so stacking strength is low; McKee drops with the square root of caliper
- Many flutes per foot give a flat surface and good crush resistance
- Saves space: more boxes per pallet of flat stock, smaller outside dimensions
F flute
- Very thin: little stacking strength on its own
- The smoothest corrugated print surface
- Fewer plants run it than E
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.