Shipping damage to high-tech products is rarely just bad luck: it is the predictable result of packaging choices made without sufficient knowledge. In this white paper, Faes explains why packaging is not a minor logistical issue, but an engineering challenge with measurable risks.
Summary of this article
Imagine this: a batch of precision modules leaves your production facility. Everything has been built, tested, and approved according to specifications. The packaging was ordered from a standard supplier and consists of standard packaging materials, such as an anti-static bag, standard cushioning or securing material, and a label. Upon arrival at the customer’s site: three out of twelve units are not functioning properly. The cause? Small cracks in sensitive components, caused by vibrations during transport.
This is a familiar scenario for anyone who ships complex electronics or precision systems. The damage is not visible: no broken components, no water ingress. The malfunction only becomes apparent during use, sometimes weeks later. The cause is ultimately traced back to the packaging, but a structural solution remains elusive.
The central thesis of this white paper is uncomfortable but demonstrable: transport damage to fragile high-tech products is rarely the result of an incident en route. It is almost always the result of choices—or the lack thereof—made weeks or months earlier. Packaging is treated as a logistical afterthought, whereas it is an engineering issue with measurable and manageable risks.
In the development of high-tech hardware, there is a structural blind spot. R&D engineers focus on the product itself: how it works, how it is made, how it performs under operational conditions. The question of how the product survives the journey from factory to customer falls outside that scope.
This is not a matter of unwillingness, but rather a question of how responsibilities are assigned. Packaging typically falls under procurement or logistics, not engineering. The result: packaging choices are made by people who did not design the product, without knowledge of exactly what makes the product vulnerable.
Structural problem
In most high-tech organizations, packaging choices are made by people who did not design the product, for a logistics chain they do not fully understand. This is the primary cause of inadequate protection.
A practical example: an engineer who designs a sensitive sensor knows exactly under what conditions the component can fail. That knowledge almost never makes it into the packaging specification. The packaging supplier receives a dimension and a weight: not the information they need to truly protect the product.
The market offers a wide range of ready-made protective packaging: anti-static bags, foam inserts, corner protectors, and plastic trays. These products aren’t bad; they’re designed for an average product under average conditions. The problem arises when they’re used for products that aren’t average.
A printed circuit board with advanced IC chips has different vulnerabilities than a simple through-hole assembly board. An optical system that is precision-aligned at the micrometer level reacts differently to shocks than a robust drive module. Anyone who puts all these products in the same standard packaging is buying a false sense of security—not real protection.
What is false security?
False security occurs when packaging meets general standards but has never been tested for the specific conditions of your own supply chain and the specific vulnerabilities of the product. The packaging is administratively compliant, but offers no guarantee in practice.
Shock loading during transport is not a single moment, but a series of events. A box that falls during handling—from a table, a pallet, or a conveyor belt—generates a short but intense impact on the product. A pallet picked up or set down by a forklift delivers a heavier jolt. A truck driving over a speed bump causes a series of smaller shocks across multiple axles simultaneously.
What matters for the product is not only how hard the impact is, but also how quickly it occurs. A hard, short impact and a softer but slower jolt can both cause damage, but in different places and through different mechanisms. For chips mounted with small solder balls (a common technique for compact electronics), the force of the impact is the determining factor. For ceramic components on a printed circuit board, it is the flexing of the board itself that causes the components to break, even if the impact was relatively gentle.
Concrete example: An 800-gram module falls from a workbench onto a concrete floor. Without proper foam protection, the product experiences an impact hard enough to break small ceramic capacitors. These breaks are not visible from the outside but later cause malfunctions in the field, sometimes only after weeks.
Vibrations during transport are perhaps the most underestimated cause of damage. A truck driving, an airplane flying, a train on the tracks: every mode of transport generates continuous, rhythmic vibrations. These vibrations are transmitted to the product through the packaging.
The danger lies not in a single large vibration, but in the repetition. Just as a bridge collapses due to fatigue if vehicles drive over it long enough, solder joints and small components can crack after millions of tiny vibration cycles. These cracks are microscopically small and invisible upon inspection, but cause malfunctions later on.
The moment it becomes truly dangerous is when the vibrations during transport exactly match the frequency at which the packaging or product naturally tends to resonate. This is called resonance. At that moment, the packaging amplifies the vibration instead of dampening it. An incorrectly chosen type of foam can actually cause this effect, even if the foam appears thick enough on the outside.
What does this mean in practice?
Packaging does not automatically dampen vibrations well simply because it is thick. Choosing the right type of foam and the right thickness is crucial. A foam type that is too soft or too light can place the system’s natural frequency—the vibration frequency at which the entire system is most sensitive—exactly within the range where transport vehicles vibrate the most. The result: more damage, not less.
Thermal stress during operation—how hot does the chip get during use?—receives a lot of attention in the design phase. Temperature fluctuations during transport are systematically underestimated, even though they can be more extreme.
A truck waiting in direct sunlight in the summer reaches internal temperatures of 60 to 70 degrees Celsius. An air freight shipment goes from the heat on the tarmac to freezing temperatures at cruising altitude and back. These rapid fluctuations are problematic because different materials in a product—the chip, the solder, the substrate—each expand and contract at different rates. These stress differences affect connections, even if the product itself has never been used outside its operational temperature range.
Moisture poses a separate risk. When a cold product suddenly enters a warm, humid environment—such as during delivery from cold storage to a heated production hall, or upon arrival in a tropical climate—moisture condenses on the product. Condensation on electrical connections or contact points leads to corrosion and small leakage currents. These cause malfunctions that are difficult to diagnose, precisely because they do not occur consistently.
Static electricity is the most insidious threat during transport, because the damage is invisible. A component that has been struck by a discharge may function perfectly during the initial test, but will degrade rapidly in the field. The damage occurs in the thin insulation layers within the chip, which have been partially damaged by the discharge. This only manifests itself later as malfunctions.
The thresholds at which damage occurs are lower than most people expect. Modern chips—and certainly those made with the latest production methods—are already sensitive to discharges that a person doesn’t even feel. Yet a person walking across a dry floor can build up a charge far higher than that threshold. Conveyor belts and sorting machines in logistics centers do the same.
The risk doesn’t stop at the outer packaging. Every time a layer of packaging is opened—during intermediate storage, at the end customer’s site, or at the assembly line—there is a moment when static electricity can reach the product if the environment isn’t controlled. Good packaging protects not only during transport but also at all those handling points.
Anti-static is not the same as protective
A pink anti-static bag prevents the bag itself from building up a charge. But it offers no protection against external charges. For that, a shielding bag is needed with a metal layer that acts as a cage: external charges are conducted through that layer and do not reach the product. These are fundamentally different products, even though they look alike.
There are international standards for transport packaging, such as ASTM D4169 and the ISTA protocols. These standards describe test programs that simulate an average distribution chain: a certain number of drops, a certain level of vibration exposure, a specific climate profile. Packaging that passes these tests has demonstrated that it works for an average product in an average supply chain.
The mistake that is systematically made: meeting such a standard is equated with adequate protection. That is incorrect. Packaging can meet the standard and still be unsuitable for your specific product or your specific distribution chain. Consider a product that is particularly sensitive to vibrations in a certain frequency range, or a chain with longer handling times than the standard assumes. The standard provides administrative certainty: not a physical guarantee.
The most effective measure is also, in principle, the simplest: involve a packaging engineer during product development, not only after the product is finished. In practice, this rarely happens. Packaging is often addressed only when the product is about to be shipped, by which time all decisions have already been made.
Early involvement makes all the difference because product designers make choices that directly influence the packaging, often without realizing it. A few examples: if fragile connectors are located on the bottom of a module, it is impossible to add a protective element underneath later without modifying the module itself. A product with its heaviest component in one corner behaves like a swinging weight when dropped: the packaging must absorb that impact, which requires more material and more precise fitting. A smooth housing without clear grip points is held less carefully in practice and therefore falls more often.
All these factors are easy to adjust if identified early on. After the design freeze, they become costly constraints.
Good packaging isn’t perfected in a single attempt. Just as in product development, the design goes through multiple iterations: first a calculation to determine the right direction, then an initial prototype, then a test, then adjustments based on what goes wrong.
That testing round always reveals things the calculation didn’t predict. A foam insert that doesn’t quite match the product’s geometry and therefore shifts when shaken. A closure that stiffens in the cold and damages the product when opened. A tray that warps after ten uses and no longer positions the product properly. Each of these findings leads to an adjustment. You only have time for that if you start early. That’s why it’s important to have a packaging partner at the table right from the initial design phase
What does R&D need to provide to the packaging engineer?
For effective collaboration, the packaging engineer needs the following information: (1) mechanical drawings including weight and center of gravity, (2) which parts are most vulnerable and why (for example: ceramic components break when the sheet is bent, optical surfaces must not be touched), (3) the components’ sensitivity to static electricity, (4) the temperature limits for storage and transport, and (5) the distribution chain: destination, mode of transport, and number of handling points. Without this input, the packaging engineer must rely on assumptions. Assumptions are the primary cause of packaging failure.
A packaging design is only complete once it has been validated. Validation proceeds in stages. First, analytically: calculations to verify whether the chosen materials and thicknesses provide sufficient protection in theory. Then through simulation: digital models that mimic behavior under shock and vibration, so that weak points become apparent before a single prototype is built. Finally, physical tests: drop, vibration, and climate tests in which the packaging and the product are tested together, not separately.
That last point is crucial. It’s not about whether the packaging passes the test, but whether the product passes the test with that packaging. Packaging that passes a drop test perfectly but causes the product to resonate during the vibrations of a truck has failed.
Best practice: the packaging specification as a product document
Treat the packaging specification as part of the product dossier, not as a logistical appendix. Document: how sensitive is the product to shocks, what is the ESD class of the components, what are the temperature limits, and what cleanliness class is required if the product is used in a cleanroom? These requirements determine the packaging, not the other way around.
Sustainability in packaging is often treated as a communication issue: which material looks more sustainable, which label fits on the box? From an engineering perspective, that is the wrong question. The right question is: what is the actual environmental impact of the packaging over its entire lifecycle, measured against the protection it provides?
That question leads to more nuanced choices than the assumption that less material is always better. A single-use Styrofoam box uses little material per unit, but is barely recyclable and generates significant waste at high volumes. Reusable packaging made of hard plastic has a higher initial impact but a lower footprint per use with sufficient return volume—provided the packaging still protects just as well after dozens of cycles as it did on day one.
That last condition is systematically overlooked. Reusable packaging whose foam has been compressed after ten cycles and no longer springs back offers a false sense of security by the eleventh shipment. The sustainability claim is then technically invalid: the packaging no longer does what it is supposed to do. Reusability must therefore be specified as an engineering requirement, including a test covering the intended lifespan.
Another concrete point: a well-designed custom solution, precisely tailored to the product’s geometry, uses less material than a generic box with generous margins and extra filler material. Less material, less weight, fewer transport emissions. In many cases, the most sustainable packaging is the best-designed packaging.
Additionally, RTM (Returnable Transport Materials) plays an important role at Faes. By not only technically developing reusable packaging but also actively managing it throughout its lifecycle, sustainability becomes measurable and manageable. Recyclability can already be taken into account during the development phase: which materials are used, how easily can components be separated, and what happens to the packaging at the end of its life cycle? In this way, sustainability is not a separate claim made after the fact, but a design criterion from the very first engineering decision.
How do you balance sustainability and protection?
Set the order correctly: first determine the minimum performance the packaging must provide in terms of protection. That is the hard prerequisite. Then, within that constraint, optimize for environmental impact: material use, reusability, recyclability, and shipping weight. Anyone who reverses the order—first focusing on sustainability and then hoping the protection turns out okay—takes a risk that’s hard to justify if a DOA report comes in.
Every packaging process begins with the same question: how sensitive is this product to shocks, vibrations, temperature fluctuations, and static electricity? That question sounds simple, but it is rarely answered systematically. Often, a foam thickness is chosen based on intuition or habit, without knowing what the product can withstand.
A product’s shock sensitivity can be determined by testing the unpackaged product: drop it from increasing heights until damage occurs. The height just below that threshold determines how well the packaging must protect it. This may seem cumbersome, but it is the only way to design packaging that truly fits the product.
The transport route determines the stresses the packaging must withstand. An air freight pallet on an intercontinental route experiences different vibrations than a package sent via a domestic courier service. A sea freight shipment to Southeast Asia faces different climatic conditions than road transport within Europe.
Map out the chain in concrete terms: from which location to which location, by what mode of transport, how many times is the shipment transshipped, under what climatic conditions. Use that information to determine which tests realistically simulate the chain. A test program that does not match the actual chain does not provide useful information.
Dead-on-Arrival (DOA)—products that arrive damaged at the customer’s location—is the most direct measure of packaging failure. Implement systematic recording of DOA cases with a category for the cause: mechanical damage, static electricity, moisture damage, or user error?
A DOA rate above 0.1% for a high-value product always warrants a thorough analysis. Also look for patterns: are there certain routes, seasons, or intermediate storage locations where damage occurs more frequently? These patterns point to the weakest link in the chain.
For products manufactured in a cleanroom and used in a cleanroom, packaging is an especially critical issue. Standard packaging materials release particles: Styrofoam is the best-known example here, but some types of foam and cardboard also produce particles that go unnoticed in a regular storage area but immediately pose a problem in a dust-free environment.
Cleanroom-compatible packaging requires materials certified for the relevant cleanliness class, a seal that prevents recontamination from the outer packaging, and a dual-layer packaging design that keeps the inner packaging clean even if the outer packaging has already been opened.
Trends in high-tech manufacturing all point in the same direction: products are becoming smaller, more complex, and more valuable. Chips are packed more densely. Systems combine optical, mechanical, and electronic functions in increasingly compact housings. Certain components are manufactured in only a handful of locations worldwide and must then pass through global logistics chains.
At the same time, the supply chain is under pressure. Just-in-time deliveries mean there is no inventory buffer to compensate for a damaged shipment. The cost of a defective product rises, due to both higher material prices and longer lead times for replacements.
In this context, treating packaging as a commodity purchase is no longer sustainable. Requirements are becoming more complex, and the margin for error is shrinking. Access to specialized knowledge in the areas of material selection, vibration behavior, ESD protection, and validation methods is becoming a strategic advantage.
Organizations that treat packaging as an engineering challenge, with the same care as product development itself, achieve a measurable advantage in reliability, customer satisfaction, and logistics costs. Those who continue to view packaging as a side issue will continue to attribute transport damage to bad luck and carry out repairs that do not solve the underlying problem.
The question “how do I guarantee the integrity of my product during transport” has an answer that is technically sound but essentially simple: design the packaging with the same discipline as the product itself, involve the right expertise early in the process, and validate based on the actual conditions of your supply chain.
Transport damage is not an accident. It is the predictable consequence of assumptions that were solidified too early and knowledge that was applied too late. A product that arrives damaged almost always has packaging that was chosen without sufficient knowledge of the product or the supply chain.
Packaging deserves a place in the design phase, a budget that matches the value of its contents, and engineers who have the knowledge to make the right choices. No packaging eliminates all risks. However, well-designed packaging makes those risks measurable and manageable. That is the difference between false security and demonstrable protection.
Tim van de Puttelaar is the Engineering Manager at Faes and specializes in packaging engineering and custom solutions. In his articles, he shares insights on optimization, testing, and engineering projects that contribute to more efficient and sustainable packaging solutions within complex supply chains.
More articles by Tim van de PuttelaarGood packaging doesn’t just happen by chance. Using a tried-and-tested approach, our specialists guide you step by step from the initial idea to the finished product.
