Packaging failures after peak season often surprise teams because the packaging already passed required lab tests. Yet once shipping volume increases, handling becomes less controlled, and transit times extend, damage appears that was never seen during validation. In most cases, the issue is not that testing was done, but that the selected tests did not fully represent peak-season conditions.
Below is a technical look at where gaps commonly occur and how to address them before the next commercial release.
Why Packaging Failures After Peak Season Occur
Peak shipping periods introduce stresses that are difficult to replicate with minimal test coverage. Higher conveyor speeds, increased manual handling, and longer trailer dwell times all add cumulative stress to the package system.
Basic distribution tests such as ISTA 1A are often used as an initial screen, but they assume relatively controlled handling and limited variability. When packages are exposed to extended vibration, repeated drops, and heavier stacking, weaknesses that were not apparent during baseline testing become visible.
Vibration Exposure Is Often Underestimated
Vibration is one of the most common contributors to damage during high-volume shipping. Low-level vibration over long durations can degrade cushioning, loosen fasteners, and shift product orientation inside the package.
Tests such as ASTM vibration and full parcel simulations like ISTA 3A are designed to better represent these conditions. When vibration testing is reduced or omitted, packages that pass drop testing alone may still fail in the field due to cumulative fatigue.
Compression and Stack Height Assumptions Break Down
During peak season, warehouses and trailers are packed more tightly to maximize capacity. Compression forces increase, and stack heights often exceed typical assumptions.
ASTM compression testing helps quantify how a package performs under sustained load, but only if realistic stack heights and safety factors are used. If compression testing is based on conservative or outdated assumptions, packaging failures can occur even though the package technically passed its original validation.
Environmental Conditioning Is Often Skipped or Minimized
Temperature and humidity changes are amplified during peak season due to longer transit times and outdoor staging. Cold docks, hot trailers, and humid environments all affect material performance.
Environmental conditioning such as extreme cold, hot and humid, or elevated temperature exposure can significantly change corrugated strength, adhesive performance, and cushioning behavior. When environmental conditioning is not combined with mechanical tests like drop or vibration, packaging may appear robust in the lab but degrade during real-world distribution.
Practical Takeaways for Reducing Risk
To reduce the likelihood of packaging failures after peak season, testing should reflect worst-case distribution conditions rather than minimum compliance. This often means moving beyond a single procedure and combining mechanical tests with realistic environmental conditioning.
Selecting the right mix of ISTA procedures, ASTM methods, and conditioning profiles early in development helps identify failure modes before products ship at scale. Testing aligned with actual distribution stress protects both the product and the release timeline.
Call to Action
If you are reviewing packaging performance after a peak shipping period or preparing for an upcoming launch, you may benefit from a second look at your test approach. Request a packaging risk review to confirm whether your current testing reflects real-world distribution conditions.
Summary
Packaging that passes basic testing can still fail when exposed to peak-season stress. Aligning test selection with vibration exposure, compression demands, and environmental conditions helps prevent costly surprises. Proper packaging testing before commercial release remains one of the most effective ways to reduce risk and protect product integrity.