Instrumented boxes were shipped on 5 different routes via UPS and FedEx second day delivery, three round trips each. Custom analysis technique was being developed, used and perfected on the collected data.

• Data consists of tri-axial acceleration profiles experienced by the instrumented box center of mass on each round trip.
• Times with acceleration levels less than 5 G were considered to be not important and disregarded.
• High G levels were recorded in 3.6 sec windows including 1.2 sec prior to the first time 5 G was detected.
• Each event was identified with date-time stamp.
• Temperature and humidity history was recorded every 30 minutes during entire trip.

To characterize shipping environment in terms compatible with drop-testing techniques, one ultimately needs drop heights. So drop height has to be used to represent shipping environment hazards experienced by the package. Two different approaches are possible:

• Report actual or real heights (RDH) the instrumented package was really dropped during its shipment.
• Come up with a technique of calculating effective drop height (EDH) which, if used in standard drop test (with standard conditioning and surface), will result in damaging characteristics close to the original event.

As a result of the considerations (Detailed in Appendix 1) Effective Drop Height was taken as a working technique.

Results of current data analysis are compiled into a database and for each round trip of instrumented box include table of events identified by:

1. Effective Drop Height.
2. Impact date-time stamp. (can be identical for rapidly occurring events indicating that they happen in the same data window)
3. Impact Type (Flat / Edge / Corner)
4. Orientation.(Bottom/Left/Front)
5. Contact Type. (Single / Multi contact indicates whether the corners touched the impacting surface at the same time or not)
6. Drop type (free fall or not)
7. Waveform data is appended to the database in form readily available for alternative processing.

The results were presented and discussed during the M.A.D.E. meeting at TransPack 99, with following suggestions adopted for continuation of the project.

• Reduce scope of collected and analyzed data in order to make geographically and statistically wide data collection economically feasible.

1. Raise trigger level to ignore activity below 7 G. (Such G levels hardly give more than 5-8 inch EDH, are most difficult to process and result in least reliable results.)
2. Report EDH of 12 in and higher only. (Since smaller drops can not be easily and reliably reproduced in testing, they are hardly useful, but take the most processing time. Waveforms are still kept and could be reanalyzed later.)

• Implement procedures for statistical data analysis and presentation.
• Improve instrument calibration by performing it in several (at least two) different labs.
• Research and implement actual testing protocol based on obtained data. As well as procedures needed to calculate the EDH correction factor for real package testing. (Mentioned in Appendix 1).
• Work with the carriers to automate the collection of package tracking information and means of connecting it to the drop data.
• Implement technique to mark the time of return shipment start and separate round trip shipments in two one way stages. (3 consecutive flat drops from 35 inch just like in the beginning will do the job.)
• Implement guidelines on optimizing instrument recording parameters (fill stop mode and longer recording window) for uneventful routes.

• "Zero G" technique is relatively simple and provides good accuracy of the results (when it is applicable).
• Produced results are intuitive and not open to interpretation or validation of methods used to obtain them.

• Only about 5-10% of smaller and 10-20 % of bigger events are actually "clean" drops qualifying for classic "Zero G" analysis.
• Another 30-40% are also some kind of drops too (tosses, slides, etc.), since "Zero G" could not be used in their processing, it has to involve consideration of entire profile.
• Remaining 50% are impacts and complex tumbles, which could be sizeable, but clearly do not have RDH. Their EDH will have to be determined anyway, creating statistically separate group of results.
• Lack of information about the real surface accepting the drops raises serious questions about direct application of the RDH results to the standard drop testing.

• To calculate EDH one needs to know pulse velocity change, restitution coefficient of instrumented box and drop surface. As the result the calculated value will inherit all the uncertainties associated with these factors.
• The approach requires numerous conventions, definitions and simplifications for the required data. They could be confusing and/or questionable.
• EDH is defined and calibrated for our instrumented box (only). If structure of real product package to test (namely its restitution coefficients) is considerably different from our instrumented box, correction factor must be worked out before the results could be used.

• All events can be considered, acceleration pulse resulting from package hitting the ground or a diverter arm hitting it are hardly different. Even the damaging factors resulting from package restricted motions can, to some degree, be represented by a standard drop.
• Uncertainty of real drop surface is automatically accounted for in calibration and does not raise questions on legality of using hard surface during the testing.
• "Zero G" technology still works and is incorporated into the analysis to improve its accuracy. The fact that some EDHs are determined with the help of "Zero G" does not create a statistically separate group of results.