TT 88-16 DLA Label Report_with Memo.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

uSAMC LOGISTlos suPPoRT ACT:Vl,Y REDSIONE AnSCNAL AL 35390,466

REPLY TO

ATTCNT ON OF

AMXLS― P丁

E ncl

25 May 17

MEMORANDUM FOR DLA lnformalon Operalons(」 62DAA/Mr Daniel Rose),2001 Mission Dttve,New Cumbenand,PA 17070

SUB」ECT: Completed Pressure Senstive Adhesive Label COmparison Testing for Use on Milltary Packaging l Enclosed for your review is the report ofthe Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Label comparison ana:ysis

2 The test specimens were portiOns ofthe labels provided by DLA lnformation

Operations AIltest specimens were maintained at standard conditiOns oftemperature and relative hunlidity untiltime oftesting and throughout testing The test specimens were sublected to tests including abrasion,adhesion,and contaminajon by luids teslng in accordance wlh MIL― PRF-61002B and ASTM D7932,Standard SpecricajOn for Printed,Pressure― Sensitive Adhesive Labeis for use in Extreme Distribution Environments Testing was performed tO determine ifthe samples were technica‖ y acceptable and reasonably functiona‖ y equal

3 Point of contactforthis matteris Sarah Gedrich,DSN 795-7649,(570)615-7649,or e_ma‖ sarah r gednch civ@mail mil Mailing address isi Chief,LOGSA Packaging, Storage,and Containerlzalon center(AMXLS― PT)/Sarah Gednch),1l Hap Arnold Boulevard,Tobyhanna,PA 18466-5097

FOR THE COMMANDER:

Chief, Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center

Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Label Material Comparison Testing for Use on Military

Packaging

Performing Activity:

USAMC LOGSA Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center

(AMXLS-PT)

11 Hap Arnold Boulevard

Tobyhanna, PA 18466-5097

Responsible Individual: Mr. Kevin Curran

Performing Activity's Reference(s): TT 88-16

Requesting Organization:

DLA Information Operations J62 DAA Operations Support

2001 Mission Drive New Cumberland, PA 17070

Attn: Daniel Rose

TT 88-16 22 May 2017 DLA Label Comparison Page i

Table of Contents

1. General Information

2. Test Items

2.1 Labels

2.1.1 Control Label

2.1.2 Thin Label

2.1.3 DTransfer PB-50 Label

2.1.4 DTransfer Redesign 1

2.2 Test Surface

2.2.1 Surface Preparation

3. Test Set-Up

3.1 Baseline Adhesion

3.2 Baseline WebScan

3.3 Visual Inspection

3.4 Contamination by Fluids

3.5 Abrasion Resistance Testing

4. Results

4.1 Baseline Adhesion

4.2 Baseline Webscan

4.3 Contamination by Fluids

4.4 Abrasion Resistance

5. Standards or Specifications

5.1 Government Standards or Specifications

6. Personnel

7. Equipment

DLA Label Comparison Page 1

1. General Information

As the Lead Service Activity for marking and labeling, tags, and tape; the Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA) Packaging Storage and Containerization Center (PSCC), Packaging Applications Test Facility is well equipped to perform testing of pressure-sensitive adhesive label materials. For that reason, they were chosen by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to participate in a Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Label Material Study. This study stemmed from the opportunity to upgrade, modernize, and improve the shipping labels on DLA materiel. The information collected during this study is intended to be used by DLA to adapt new labels which will meet the rigors of the military logistics cycle.

Funding support was from PSCC’s lead service testing funds.

2. Test Items

2.1 Labels

Original testing was performed on three different types of labels provided to PSCC by DLA.

Additional Testing was performed on Redesigned Labels as noted. All labels were stored in standard conditions of 23 ± 1°C and 50 ± 2%RH prior to testing. Each label contained up to four barcodes. Results from the original label and redesigned label testing are included in Section 4.

2.1.1 Control Label

The “control label” was a Standard Military Shipping Label currently in use by DLA. The label was brought to PSCC by Jerome Rodgers and Daniel Rose on 3 August 2016. No identifying information was provided.

2.1.2 Thin Label

The “thin label” is another Standard Military Shipping Label commonly used by DLA, and was mailed to PSCC separately. The labels arrived 20 August 2016 via FedEx Overnight shipment.

Thin Label:

Part Number: E28863 Unit: RL FIFO date: 060116 Lot#: M776580

2.1.3 DTransfer PB-50 Label

The “DTransfer PB-50 Label” is the new type of label under study for use on military packaging. The DTransfer label is comprised of a label substrate paired with a print media film on a roll.

DLA Label Comparison Page 2

Upon receiving the original results, DLA redesigned the DTransfer label and sent more samples to PSCC for testing. These “DTransfer Redesign 1” labels corrected problems discovered in the original DTransfer label prints. Upon receiving the new results for DTranfer Label Redesign 1, DLA again redesigned the DTransfer label print as “DTransfer Label Resdesign 2” and these final samples were sent to PSCC for testing.

DTransfer Labels:

P/N 740873-701 DESC: DTransfer PB50 REV001 SIZE: 4 x 6 finished label size MAT: Resin Ribbon / polypropylene -perm adhesive

Figure 2-1: Control Label, Thin Label, and DTransfer Label, respectively

Figure 2-2: DTransfer Label with and without print media film, respectively

DLA Label Comparison Page 3

2.1.4 DTransfer Redesign 1

The original DTransfer label had “streaks” that resulted in readability failures (see Figure 2-3). These errors were partially corrected in the DTransfer label redesign. The original DTransfer labels were also printed slightly off center such that the 1st barcode frequently failed the “quiet zone” barcode requirement. The manufacturer evaluated core size, hand rewind effect, and feed characteristics. The manufacturer optimized the core size, converted the material using expected manufacturing process, and optimized feed speed and burn temp settings to produce the DTransfer Redesign 1 Label (see Figure 2-4). The labels arrived 19 January 2017 via FedEx Overnight Shipment.

Figure 2-3: DTransfer Label Streak Errors Before Redesign

Figure 2-4: Correction of Off-Center Printing with DTransfer Label Redesign vs Original

DTransfer Label, respectively

DLA Label Comparison Page 4

2.1.4.1 DTransfer Redesign 2

Through discussions with the manufacturer, it was determined that the label “streaks” were caused by loose print media film. The manufacturer visited New Cumberland to verify print setting and changes to the label orientation that corrected the issue. These labels were received via FedEx on 31 January 2017 and documented as DTransfer Redesign 2.

2.2 Test Surface

All test sequences were conducted on stainless steel test surfaces. This surface was chosen as a baseline for the label study. A full series of testing would include multiple testing surfaces.

Stainless steel test panels used were 2 x 5 in. for adhesion tests and contamination by fluids barcode readability tests. The 2 x 5 in. panels used for adhesion tests met the requirements of ASTM D 3330 Standard Test Method for Peel Adhesion of Pressure-Sensitive Tape, including a bright annealed finish, thickness of no less than 0.043 in. and conform to Type 302 or 304 of Specification A666 Standard Specification for Annealed or Cold-Worked Austenitic Stainless Steel Sheet, Strip, Plate, and Flat Bar. The surface roughness height was 50 ± 25 nm [2.0 ± 1.0 µin.] arithmetical average deviation from the mean line (indicating a smooth polished surface). The 2 x 5 in. panels used for contamination by fluids barcode readability tests were not required to meet the surface roughness specification.

Figure 2-5: Test Panel Surface

2.2.1 Surface Preparation

The stainless steel was cleaned in accordance with ASTM D 6252, Standard Test Method for Peel Adhesion of Pressure-Sensitive Label Stocks at a 90 Degree Angle. Accordingly, the test surfaces were first scrubbed with diacetone alcohol (Isopropyl Alcohol 99%; Mfg. - Pharmco-AAPER) using a clean piece of absorbent cleaning material (12-ply, 4 x 4 in. gauze sponges), dried with the same material and then washed three times with Acetone (Klean- Strip; Mfg. - W.M. Barr & Co., Inc.), each time using a new clean absorbent gauze sponge.

After the test panels were cleaned, 1 x 4 in. label test specimens were prepared and adhered to the test panels for adhesion testing in accordance with ASTM D 6252. An automatic mechanical roller was used to apply the label test specimens to the test panels for adhesion tests and a manual mechanical roller was used to adhere the larger bar code labels to larger test panels where required for barcode readability tests.

3. Test Set-Up

Where applicable, testing was performed in accordance with the TT 18-16 DLA Test Plan, MIL-PRF-61002B, and various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), International Standards Organization (ISO), and the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) Standards.

3.1 Baseline Adhesion

Adhesion testing was performed in accordance with ASTM 6252, Standard Test Method for Peel Adhesion of Pressure-Sensitive Label Stocks at a 90 Degree Angle. Prior to testing, test surfaces were conditioned in standard conditions (as described by ASTM D4332 Standard Practice) for a period of not less than 24 hours. To perform this test, test surfaces were prepared as indicated in ASTM 6252 and described above in 2.2.10 Surface Preparation.

According to the ASTM, baseline tests were completed within 60 seconds of application.

Testing was performed using a variable angle peel test fixture set at 90 degrees. The fixture consists of a bearing-mounted table that is linked to the tensile testing machine’s crosshead by a cable and pulley system. One end of the specimen is placed on the fixture’s table surface and the other end is inserted into the standard tensile tester grip. As the crosshead moves in the tension direction, the cable pulls the table laterally along the rail to maintain a constant 90° angle for the peel. This prevents any exertion of outside forces on the specimen.

The force required to peel the specimen is therefore reported by the tensile test machine and corresponds to adhesive strength of the label.

Figure 3-1. Adhesion Test

3.2 Baseline WebScan

To determine readability of the barcode labels before and after testing, a barcode verifier was chosen. This equipment was utilized instead of a hand-held bar-code scanner because of the additional information that it was capable of providing. The make/model chosen was Webscan TruCheck Omni. This all-in-one, large format verification system combined linear barcode verification and condition/appearance tests into one "print quality" test in accordance with International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 15415 and 15416 (Information Technology- Automatic Identification and Data Capture Techniques-Bar Code Print Quality Test Specifications). The data verification meets Global Standards (GS1) and is compliant with ISO 15426-1 and 2 (Information Technology-Automatic Identification and Data Capture Techniques-Bar Code Verifier Conformance Specification) and provides clear reports of quality grade and data content. The scans also provided nine American National Standards Institute (ANSI) parameters including edge determination (EDGE), minimum reflectance (R1/Rd), symbol contrast (SC), minimum edge contrast (MinEC), modulation (MOD), defects (DEF), decode (DCD), decodability (DEC), and quiet zone (QZ).

Figure 3-2. Using Barcode Verification System

3.3 Visual Inspection

In accordance with MIL-PRF-61002B and standard laboratory practices, a visual inspection of all test specimens was made before and after testing. In instances where a difference in appearance was evident, those differences were annotated in the test results.

3.4 Contamination by Fluids

The Contamination by Fluids (Chemical Resistance) test was conducted in accordance with MIL-STD-810 Method 504.1, Procedure II. The contamination sequence was as

DLA Label Comparison Page 2 follows: 1 h immersion time, visual inspection, 7 h immersion time, drying time not to exceed 24 hours. Five samples were used for each chemical for peel adhesion testing and 5 separate samples were used for each chemical test for 2D barcode verification testing (as pull test strips cannot be scanned).

Unpolished stainless steel was used for samples set for barcode scanning. Polished stainless steel as described in section 2.2 was used for samples set for pull adhesion testing. Tests were performed on ambient (23°C) samples only. Application was by immersion, except insect repellent, which was applied by brush. The test chemicals were as follows:

a) Water: distilled. Used as a baseline.

b) Fuel Oil Diesel (DL-2): In accordance with A-A-52887A or commercial equivalent.

c) Insect Repellant: Personal application in accordance with NSN 6840-01-284-3982 or commercial equivalent.

d) Heated Detergent: In accordance with MIL-PRF-61002B.

Table 3-1: Contamination by Fluids, Fluid Descriptions

Description Performance Spec

NSN Item Name Mfg CAGE

Water, distilled Fuel Oil –

Diesel (DL-2) Low Sulfur

A-A-52887A or ASTM

D975

Diesel Fuel No.2 Low Sulfur

Citgo Petroleum

Corp

CITGO

Insect repellant 6840-01-284-

6840-01- 284-3982

Ultrathon Insect Repellent Lotion

3M, St Paul, MN

Heated Detergent

MIL-PRF-

61002B

6505-00- 839-8894

Powdered Detergent

Alconox, Inc.

17534

After completion of the contamination by fluids testing, all samples underwent peel adhesion testing in accordance with paragraph 3.1, barcode verification in accordance with paragraph 3.2, and visual inspection in accordance with paragraph 3.3.

Figure 3-3. Contamination by Fluids

DLA Label Comparison Page 3

3.5 Abrasion Resistance Testing

The Abrasion Resistance was performed in accordance with ASTM G195 using the CS-10 Calibrase abrading wheel and a 250 gram weight on each wheel. The barcodes were cut and adhered to the wear zone of a Taber abrasion mounting card with NIST 1080A linerboard adhered to the surface. A Taber Single Rotary Abraser was used to test the samples. A baseline scan was taken before testing and scans were taken after each numerated abrasion cycle with the Webscan TruCheck Omni for barcode grade. Abrasion testing was stopped for each label set after all barcodes received failing grade scans.

Figure 3-4. Taber Abraser for testing

Abrasion Resistance

Figure 3-5. Mounting card with linerboard with barcodes.

4. Results

4.1 Baseline Adhesion

The mean values for baseline adhesion testing of each label type are shown below in Table 4-1. The Control Label and the Thin Label met the baseline adhesion requirements of MIL-PRF-61002B, Labels, Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive, for Bar Coding. The DTransfer Label and DTransfer Label Redesign 1 did not meet the requirements of MIL-PRF-61002B.

None of the labels met the adhesion requirements specified in ASTM D7932, Standard Specification for Printed, Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive Labels for Use in Extreme Distribution Environments. Some significant observations include:

• Several of the thin labels delaminated and tore during adhesion testing, as shown in Figure 4-1.

DLA Label Comparison Page 9

• The Control Label and Thin Label met the minimum adhesion requirement for MIL- PRF-61002B, but did not meet the requirement in accordance with ASTM D7932.

• The DTransfer Label and DTransfer Label redesign 1 did not meet the minimum requirement for MIL-PRF-61002B or ASTM D7932.

Table 4-1: Mean of Baseline Adhesion by Label Type

Adhesion to Stainless Steel (oz/in)

Baseline MIL-PRF-61002B 4.2.5.3

ASTM D7932-14

Type II

Control Label 36.3

30 50 Thin Label 33.1

DTransfer Label 21.6 DTransfer Label

Redesign 1 23.1

Figure 4-1. Baseline Peel Testing of Thin Label

4.2 Baseline Webscan

The mean values for baseline WebScan reading of each label type are shown below in Table 4-2. The mean was calculated from the initial readings from the abrasion and chemical contamination test samples for the baseline testing. The mean of the redesigns was calculated from scans following each of the redesigns but were not otherwise tested.

In accordance with MIL-STD-130, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, a minimum grade of 3.0 is required for quality acceptance. Some significant observations include:

DLA Label Comparison Page 10

• The Control Labels did not have the barcode for the Transportation Control

Movement Documentation (TCMD) Data.

• Initial DTransfer labels identified an issue with the quiet zone of the Transportation

Control Number (TCN) as a result of off-center printing.

• Initial DTransfer labels identified an issue with “streaks” through the barcodes as a result of a wrinkle in the print film.

• Only one label from the DTransfer Label Redesign 1 sample had the “Pieces” barcode.

• The adjusted settings of the DTransfer Label Redesign 1 resolved the issue with the quiet zone and wrinkle, but introduced an error in the PDF417 barcode making it undecodable.

Table 4-2: Label Baseline Scan Summary of Results

Baseline Scan of Barcodes

Control Label

TCN 3.9

Pieces 3.9 Consignee 3.9

TCMD (PDF417) N/A

Thin Label

TCN 3.7

Pieces 3.9 Consignee 3.9

TCMD (PDF417) 3.4

DTransfer Label

TCN 0.7

Pieces 3.6 Consignee 3.9

TCMD (PDF417) 3.3

DTransfer Label

Redesign 1

TCN 3.4

Pieces 3.8 Consignee 3.6

TCMD (PDF417) 0.6

DTransfer Label

Redesign 2

TCN 3.7

Pieces 3.7 Consignee 3.6

TCMD (PDF417) 3.6

DLA Label Comparison Page 11

4.3 Contamination by Fluids

The mean values for the change in readability for each barcode of each label are shown below in Table 4-3. Negative changes mean a decrease in readability; positive changes mean an increase. Formula is (post test reading) minus (original). In accordance with MIL- STD-130, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, a minimum grade of 3.0 is required for quality acceptance. Some significant observations include:

• Water had a minimal effect on the readability of all labels.

• The Diesel caused the Control and Thin Labels to become very faded and the ink smeared. The barcodes were unreadable.

• Insect repellant was applied using a brush due to the viscosity of the contaminant.

All labels ink was smudged and unreadable after application.

• The Heated Detergent caused the ink of the Thin Label to smudge and smear. The barcodes were unreadable.

Table 4-3. Means of Readability Change of Contamination by Fluids Testing by Contaminant and Label Type (Readability results based on a 0.0 – 4.0 scale).

Chemical

Water Diesel Insect Repellent

Heated Detergent

Control Label

TCN 0 -3.96 -3.9 -2.2

Pieces 0.04 -3.88 -4 -0.8 Consignee -0.02 -3.92 -3.92 -0.8

TCMD (PDF417) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Thin Label

TCN -0.08 -3.84 -3.7 -3.48

Pieces -0.1 -3.94 -3.92 -3.82 Consignee -0.1 -3.82 -3.82 -3.08

TCMD (PDF417) -0.08 -3.14 -3.42 -1.92

Dtransfer Label

TCN1 0.12 0 -0.32 0.28

Pieces -0.02 -0.06 -3.48 -0.18 Consignee 0 -0.04 -3.84 -0.22

TCMD (PDF417) 0.06 -0.06 -3.36 -0.28

1 Initial scans did not meet required quality levels and were not readable after testing.

DLA Label Comparison Page 12

Figure 4-2. Ink Fading and Smearing after Exposure to Diesel

The mean values of Contamination by Fluids peel testing of each contaminant by label type are shown below in Table 4-4. Loss of adhesion below 30 oz./in. shall be construed as non-conformance with MIL-PRF-61002B. Adhesion levels that shall be construed as non-conformance in accordance with ASTM D7932 are those below 50 oz./in. when contaminated with water and adhesion below 35 oz./in. when contaminated with Diesel, Insect Repellent, or Heated Detergent. Some significant observations include:

• The Control and Thin labels delaminated and tore during adhesion testing with water and heated detergent.

• Some of the Control labels lifted while immersed in the heated detergent and re-adhered to the substrate.

• Some of the DTransfer labels fell off while immersed in the heated detergent, resulting in extremely low adhesion.

• The Thin label is the only label that meets the requirement for adhesion post water exposure in accordance with MIL-PRF-61002B.

• None of the labels met the minimum adhesion requirements for post-exposure of fluids other than water in accordance with MIL-PRF-61002B.

• None of the labels met the minimum adhesion requirement for post-exposure in accordance with ASTM D7932 for water or other fluids.

Table 4-4: Contamination by Fluids Adhesion Test Summary of Results

Adhesion to Stainless Steel (oz/in)

Water Diesel Insect Repellent

Heated Detergent

Control Label 27.9 0.0 1.8 16.4 Thin Label 33.5 0.0 1.1 12.1

DTransfer Label 27.6 24.0 29.9 7.0

DLA Label Comparison Page 13

Figure 4-3. Samples Exposed to Heated Detergent Lifting from Substrate

4.4 Abrasion Resistance

Table 4-5 shows the mean number of cycles of abrasion until a reading below a “C” grade was reached. If the reading was a failure the previous reading above a “C” (1.5) is considered the maximum number of cycles of abrasion resistance. A minimum of 100 cycles for abrasion resistance and a minimum barcode reading of “C” (1.5) is required in accordance with both MIL- PRF-61002B and ASTM D7032. Significant observations include:

• All labels met the initial requirement of a minimum grade of “B” (2.5).

• The Control Label and the Thin Label did not meet the minimum abrasion resistance requirement.

• The DTransfer Label was the only label that met the minimum requirement for a Grade B label in accordance with MIL-PRF-61002B,

• The DTransfer Label was the only label that met the minimum requirement for a Type II label in accordance with ASTM D7932.

Table 4-5: Abrasion Resistance Test Summary of Results

Average Barcode Grade after No. of Cycles

0 5 7 10 20 50 60 75 90 100 Control Label 3.9 1.9 0.9 0.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Thin Label 3.9 1.4 1.0 0.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DTransfer

Label 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.4 2.6 2.3 1.5 1.7 1.6

DLA Label Comparison Page 14

Figure 4-4. Abrasion Specimens after each Barcode Test

5. Standards or Specifications

5.1 Government Standards or Specifications

The following specifications, standards, and handbooks form a part of this document to the extent specified herein:

• MIL-STD-810G, Environmental Test Methods and Engineering Guidelines

• MIL-PRF-61002B, Performance Specification Labels, Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive, For Bar Coding

• ASTM G195, Standard Guide for Conducting Wear Tests Using a Rotary Platform

Abraser

• ASTM D6252, Standard Test Method for Peel Adhesion of Pressure-Sensitive Label

Stocks at a 90° Angle

• ASTM D7932-14, Standard Specification for Printed, Pressure-Sensitive Adhesive

Labels for Use in Extreme Distribution Environments1

6. Personnel

The following personnel performed the aforementioned testing, or had a role in the testing, evaluation, and/or documentation, as reported herein; from PSCC; Sarah Gedrich, Patricia Curran, and Kevin Curran

DLA Label Comparison Page 15

7. Equipment

Table 7-1: Equipment List

Item Manufacturer Notes/Test Used- On

Tenney 10'x10' Environmental Chamber w/Synergy Controller/Tempgard IV w/Watlo Control, Mdl WITR-5095, SN0712000052

Thermal Product Solutions

Standard Conditioning

Tenney 4'x4' Environmental Test Chamber, Mdl T64RC, SN 28052, w/Versa Tenn V Controller & Honeywell Chart Recorder Mdl.

DR4300, SN9951Y944605200002

Thermal Product Solutions

Standard Conditioning

Thermotron Industries 4x4 Temperature-Humidity Chamber, Model SE-2000-6-6, SN 37404

Thermotron Industries Standard Conditioning

Abraser, Rotary, Single

Taber Ind, Co., N.

Tonawanda, NY Abrasion Test

Instron Tensile, Elongation, Flex Tester, Mdl 5566, SN 617- 5566Q8278

Instron, Norwood, MA Adhesion

Variable Angle Peel Fixture, Mdl 2820-036, SN 75311 Instron, Norwood, MA Adhesion

Compression & Tension Load Cell, 100N, Mdl 2525-807, SN 75311 Instron, Norwood, MA Adhesion

Webscan TruCheck Omni, Mdl

TC833, SN TC833-0112-015

Webscan, 1254 Sherman Dr, Longmont, CO 80501

Barcode Scan