WN I- h -; Its E111. vi, J. CORRUGAITOnd,-, MEDIUM, SrT 4MO 'f 4 'J f. -3 I I tf. s""i. I'ft. j;dl. iij rojeli

Transcription

1 i T, 1i-ISST 'i,! ott I nl al N j 4 ME -5 I'! R.:!Ul J 1 4,., t,, I A WN I- h -; Its E111 vi, J. Ins pinct b.i q. s""i J..1k., I'ft Sri 1,1i;, Ij; 4., 4 4",Ti j;dl 'Z A. ff Fail J i q J 41 f; 'tv, i!14 ( I q j':-;comtimous EVALUATOGN 1R., y. 4 W Yl CORRUGAITOnd,-, MEDIUM, J iij rojeli air I. -" fully. vy, ti ;Nfnitien I, Pk SrT 4MO 'f 4 'J f 'to FOURDRINIER'KRAFT- BOARD, INSTITUTE,, 1INC -3 I I tf Y1 Al V.!"Flats, Al evil 41. "A 1 " '414 i,; j

2 THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY Appleton, Wisconsin CONTINUOUS EVALUATION OF CORRUGATING MEDIUM The purpose of this study is to provide a continuous evaluation of the quality and runability of corrugating medium produced by members of the Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute. The study, as it progresses, will accumulate a backlog of data and experience which will provide two important benefits. First, it will enable each participant to evaluate his position in relation to the rest of the industry. Second, it will provide information essential for the interpretation of any proposed specifications on corrugating medium (on either a company or industry basis). The procedure for participating in this study involves the submission of two rolls of corrugating medium per week from each machine to The Institute of Paper Chemistry. These rolls are taken from regular production runs on different days. Each roll is 1 to 12 inches wide and contains approximately 2,5 lineal feet of medium (approximately 2 inches in diameter). Each roll as it is received by the Institute is assigned a code letter and number. The rolls are numbered in the sequence in which they are received. Code letters are assigned on the basis of machines and a given machine is assigned a different code letter each month in order to mask the identity of the mills. For purposes of reference, a copy of the outline of the program together with the necessary instructions for sampling was appended to Progress Report One in this series. During the month of June, fifty-six different sample lots of corrugating medium, submitted from the production of thirteen machines,

3 I Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Project Page 2 Progress Report Nineteen were evaluated at The Institute of Paper Chemistry. A tabulation of the samples classified according to machines may be seen in Table I. TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF CORRUGATING MEDIUM SAMPLES i r.i Machine Code A B C D E F H I J K L M N Total Number of Samples Each sample of corrugating medium was evaluated for basis 1i I weight, caliper, Concora flat crush, H. and D. flat crush (single-faced board), and runability. Runability was measured by corrugating each roll under standardized conditions on the Institute's corrugator into A-flute board at 6 feet per minute with 1/2 inch tension. If satisfactory runability occurred at this speed, the corrugator was slowed down in increments of 25 f.p.m. until satisfactory runability was obtained (no ruptured flutes). If the medium fabricated satisfactorily at 6 f.p.m. with 1/2 inch tension, further runs were made at higher tensions to determine when cracking occurred. The higher tensions used were 1. inch and 1.5 inch. - I

4 Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Page 3 Project Progress Report Nineteen Flat crush was determined on the board obtained at the highest speed using 1/2 inch tension. These results will provide data which may be useful in studying the relationship between Concora flat crush and combined board flat crush for each participant's medium. As requested by-members of the FK.B.I., the Concora medium test results are calculated on the basis of pounds of load per unit area rather than on the basis of the formula suggested by the Concora manufacturer and are reported as Concora flat crush test results. In Progress Reports One and Two, the Concora medium test results were reported on the basis of the formula suggested by the Concora manufacturer. The average test results obtained on the samples of corrugating medium submitted by each participant are shown in Table II and graphically presented in Figures 1 to 4. In addition to a comparison of the test data obtained for the various machines, Table II also presents the current F.K.I. averages, cumulative F.K.I. averages, and the F.K.I. indexes. The current F.K.I. average is the average test result for all machines participating in the study during a given month. The cumulative F.K.I. average is based on the results for the previous twelve-month period excluding the result for the current period. The F.K.I. index is obtained as follows: current F.K.I. average x 1 = F.K.I. index (%) -,, cumulative F.K.I. average The F.K.I. index provides a ready means of comparing the current quality with previous results. An index greater than 1% indicates that current quality is higher than the average result for the previous twelve periods; an index below 1% indicates that current quality is lower than the average result for the previous twelve periods. -I

5 Crush, (D~ n~1 I -' HCD FI-. '-U '11 Oq *1 CD U, U, CD Ii 3-1 H C.- C-, CD a (D CD CD tl -I TABLE II SUMMARY OF CURRENT MACHINE AVERAGES Mill Code lb. Caliper, Concora Flat Crush, Points p.54.i Single-face Flat p. s~i. A 26,1 B No C 27.1 D 27. E Ž84 F 28,3 z 26.*8 H I J IC L H N Current F.K.I. Average Ž samples submitted , , , ,.1 38.* * o ,9 39.* Cumulative F.K.I. Average F.K.I. Index, %

6 Fourdriner Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Project Page 5 Progress Report Nineteen ( U, % F.K.I. Av. i ABC D E F G H I K L M N COMPARISON OF BASIS WEIGHT RESULTS Figure 2 a: a. 9L.4 U F.K.I. i"if. K.I. Av. Moch. A B C D E F G H I J K COMPARISON OF CALIPER RESULTS - ucurrent machine average Cumulative machine average

7 I rt -Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. I Project Page 6 Progress Report Nineteen I.4 42,- o 3 8 x 36 () : 'L 3 Figure 3 & b I - hl U- 1 I't I*.-- _17 to 4-.LL.l _ 'ttr- F.K.I. Av. I i r-i I I o - E 26 31=I ) 'A 24 illl 5>? ' ' -' L ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Mach. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N COMPARISON OF CONCORA FLAT CRUSH RESULTS Figure 4 ' OZ a: S U. F.K.I. Av. -J a (D z I COMPARISON OF SINGLE-FACE FLAT CRUSH RESULTS Current machine average Cumulative machine average II

8 Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Page 7 Project Progress Report Nineteen The test results obtained on the sample lots submitted from the production of each of the machines are shown in Tables III through XVI for Machines A through N, respectively. The maximum, minimum, and average test results obtained on each sample lot are shown for all tests except basis weight for which only the average is shown; in addition, the over-all average result for all the sample lots submitted for each machine is shown for each test. machine averages." The latter over-all averages are reported as "current A cumulative machine average is also shown and is calculated by averaging the current machine averages for the previous twelve periods (excluding the current period). Also shown for each machine in Tables III to XVI are the machine factor and machine index which are defined as follows: current machine average x 1 = machine factor cumulative machine average current machine average x 1 = machine index () cumulative F.K.I. average The machine factor and machine index provide a means for comparing the current machine average with either the previous results for that particular machine or with the cumulative results for all machines--i.e., the cumulative F.K.I. average. In Table II the current machine averages for the period covered by this report are summarized. It may be noted that basis weight varied from a low of 26.1 lb. for Machine A to a high of 29.8 lb. for Machine J. The average basis weight for the thirteen participating machines (current F.K.I. average) was sq. ft., which is somewhat higher than the cumulative F.K.I. average of 27. lb. as indicated by the F.K.I. index of 11.6%. The average results for all machines satisfy the requirements of Rule Wi

9 Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Page 8 Project Progress Report Nineteen Caliper results varied from a low value of 9.3 for Machine L to a high value of 11.6 for Machine J. The current F.K.I. average for caliper was 1.3 points, the same as the cumulative F.K.I. average, giving an F.K.I. index for caliper of 1.%. The average caliper results for all machines meet the Rule 41 specification. Concora flat crush test results ranged from a minimum of 26. p.s.i. for Machine F to a maximum of 4.7 p.s.i. for Machine C. The current F.K.I. average was 36.4 p.s.i., somewhat higher than the cumulative F.K.I. average of 34.3 p.s.i. as indicated by the F.K.I. index of 16.%. Machine C also had the highest average single-face flat crush, it being 42.7 p.s.i.; Machine F also had the lowest, 26.8 p,.s.i. The current F.K.I. average for flat crush was 37.7 p.s.i., whereas the cumulative F.K.I. average was 35.6 p.s.i., giving an F.K.I. index of 15.7%. For the current period, the current F.K.I. averages for basis weight, Concora flat crush, and single-face flat crush exceeded their respective cumulative averages, whereas the current F.K.I. average for caliper was the same as the cumulative average.... I a I

10 G1 C ID <n -C TABLE III SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINE A Date C de Made Mill Date Roll Recd. No. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, Concora Flat Crush, points p.s.i. M ax. Min. Av. Max. Min. Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. Runability -I L-2? at 6 f.p.m.a at 35 f.p.m. Current Machine Average: C=. 'lative Iachine Average: achire Factor, % hchi-re Index, % a ':ith 1/2 lb./in. tension. TABLE IV SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINE B No samples submitted.

11 f.p.m.a f p.m.a fc.pm.b I--- I I Im C1 'U a *1 I.' (Dq CD CD IRMM I mm r1 SUMMARY OF TABLE V TEST RESULTS FOR M&.CHINE C June, 195? rdate Co1de Made mill Date Roll Recd. NO. 31OOO sq. ft. Caliper, points He&X. Kin. AN. Concora Flat Crush, P.S *i. Max. Min. Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.a. Max. Min. Ax. Runability ? ? z 42.* at 6 at 6 at 6 Current Machine Average: C~unlative Machine Average: Machine Factor, % Machine Index, % fl19.8 a q,,ith 1/2 lb./in. tension. b ;:,ithn 1 lb. /in. tension. C

12 '1. '1 '1 ~1 C- r Ct (P H mmlppm _,- -.I, I _- - - Ii k. 1! I I TABLE VI SUbMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINE D a.- H" 1 w I m -4 P Datea ICade Made Date Roll Recd. NO. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points max. mini. AV. Concora Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. Runabillity fl-2 D -5 D-6 D Sl ? ? * ?.? J ~ ~ Satisfac tory at 6o or1.,a at 6 frs.rn.b at 6 r.nc.m~b at 6 f.p.rn.b at 6 f.c.rn. at 6 frn,-c at 6 f.p.m.b IGurrent Machine Average: *&inlative Machine Average Machine Factor, 4K *2 YMnchine Index, % a-rt 1/2 1lo./in. tension. S 4lith 1 lb./in. tension. c ;ijth, 1-1/2, lb./in. tension.

13 _F_. f.p.rn. f.p.n.. f.p.rn. f.p.m. o. H 's ts - ' Cr I- TABIX VII SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHIM~ E Date C d e Made mill Date Roll Recd. INO. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points MaX. gin. Concora Flat Crush, p.s.i. Av. Max. M-in. Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Kax. K-in. Av. Runability S-i F I~ o t.5 at at at at C,-ent Machine Average: ~u'mulative Machire Average: Machi-ne Factor, d' Machine Index, % s's

14 f. p.m. a f.p.a. f:prtrb 'z th. 1 H " C- hi C *1 *1 H't I'*1.P. C.F IV H S ' - -U TART VIII StYNMARY OF TEST RESULTS FRt MACHINE F rate Cede Made F F F-3~ ? Dae' Roli Recd. NO ~ sq. ft Caliper, po ints Max. Min. 1.* Concora Flat p.s.i. Av. Max. Min. Crush, AN a Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. AV ? Ruinabi~lity at 6 at 6 at 6 Current Machine Average: * 26.8 Cumulative Machine Average: Machine Factor. % Machine Index. % ? a ',<th lb./in. tension. b With 1 lb./in. tension.

15 f.p.m.a f.p.m. H H. H' 'I : -J *1 9r Cr I- $ - m TAR.E. IX SUMb&ARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MALCHINE G "Ce.4. G-1 -_2 U_-' a-u G-1-5j G-7 Date ? C Date Roll Recd. NO. 5-2?-5? sq. ft ? 27.* 26.? 27. 2?7* 26.o Caliper, points Max. Kini. Av. 11] * * * * 1 *9 11.* *4 Concora Flat P.s-i. Max. Min *4I Crush,, Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i.,kv. Max. Kinh. Ax o ' L 39.8 ~4.* *4 39.* Runabi I ty at 6 f.pan.a at 6 f p.m.- at 6 fep.m. a at 6 at 6 at 6 at 5 Current Machine Average: * Cumnrdative Mlachine -Average: * Mlachire Factor, Machine Index, % 99.* a, with 1/ lb./in. tension.

16 at 45 at 45 at coo at 6 at 6 at 6 f.p.m. f.p.mn. f.p.mn.a. ' H H H ' -4 be a m a 3 P4 H. Cr I -4 a I L F_ I I- '_-- r 1V - I I - I TAL RIX SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINlE H Dat e IC de Ma5de mill Date Roll Recd. NO. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points Max. Min. Concora. Flat Crush, P.S. i. Av. Max. Min. Av. SDingle-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. Rimabi Iity L " L-5? ? 6-1C ? ? z, * * 1.* * * * ? ? ? *2 14.* *2 141.* ? ? le Current Machine Average: Cwnmulative Machine Average: * Machine Factor, % *2 Machine Index, % *1 a with. 1/2 lb./in. tension. b With 1 lb./in. tension.

17 I Cl. El. 1. Cr '-S a. CD - n ' TABLE XI SUbMKARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACH] NE I -L' H' H H_ a n rate VZe,Made MmiI Date Roll Reed. NO. 1 sq. ft ? Caliper, Concora. Flat Crush, points P. S.i. Max. Mini. AV. Max. Min. Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av ? Runabi-lity at 6 f.p.n. a at 6 f. 9 * 1 m*a Current Machine Average: Cumulative Machine Average: Machine Factor, % X-chine Index, % a ":Aith 1/2 lb./in. tension.

18 1. '- -- ;;i'~~~~~~~4 -" I -~ ak TABLE XII SUMIMARY OF TEST RJESULTS FOR MACHINE J - Date v"..e Ma de Date Rofll Recd. NO. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points Max. Kin. Concora Flat Crush, p.s-i. Av. Max. Min. Av., Single-Face flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Minh. Av. t,-2 J -L' * * * * L 3' Runabi-lity at 6 f.p.m.a at 6 f.p.mb at 6 f~~~ at 6 f.pan~b Current Machine Average: 29.*8 11.* Cumulative Machine Average: Machine Factor, % Machine Index, % a witm 1-i/2 lb./in. tension. b with 1/2 lb./in. tension *

19 floin 3 f.p.m.a f.p.in.a f.p.m.a '2 on C t ~ a H TABLE 1(111 SUNMMRY OF TEST RESULTS FODR MACHINE K lod Made mill Date Roll Recd. No. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points Max. Mih. AV. Concora Flat D.S.i. Max..Min. Crush,,Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. Runabi I Jty 'K-2 K-3 I, K -6 K c? ic ' ? 26.5, k * , , io ,4 41,4 L2, * * * 42, at 6 at 6 at 6 at 6 at 6 at 6 at 6 Current Machine Average: ,7 4,4 4.8 Cumulative Machine Average: Machine Factor, % ,8 29_ Machine Index, % a With 1/2 lb./in. tension. I M

20 i " Runability f.p.m. f.p.m.s f.p.m.b f.p.m.a -d t5 C'. -q o 31 c C H '1 -" H H Co I c 1Cr t' 1 P. i- m cr gc Cr T TABLE XIV SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINE L Date Code Msade Mill Date Roll Reed. No. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points Max. Min. Concora Flat Crush, p.s.i. Av. Max. Min. Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. L-1 L-2 L-3 L-L, i at at at at Current Machine Average: Cumulative Machine Average Machine Factor, % Machine Index, % a With 1/2 lb./in. tension. With 1 lb./in. tension. [wi

21 a *1. ' I m *1 I- CL. o gm Cr O N TABLE xv SUMMQRY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINE M 1 Date code Made lkiif Date Roll Recd. No. 1 sq. ft Caliper, points Max. Kin. AV Concora Flat Crush, p.s.i. max. Mmi. Akv Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. max. Kin. Akv Runability at 6 f.p.mn.a at 6 f.p.mpb Current Machine Avc-rage: Cvnulative Mlachine Average: Machine Factors % IMachine Index, % * * a With 1 lb./in. tension. b with 1-1/2 lb./in. tension. I-

22 o o. a Cr H H- -3 an a C. 1 '11 C. 1 Cr Cr to P- _#,, _ * ---- ~t.. -_ ~ I --, -. ~ J -. _ -,-:'- -' :, ,-, -- :1 TABLE XVI SUM4MARY OF TEST RESULTS FOR MACHINhE N 2Ce~-d Date Date Roll Recd. NO. 1 sq. ft. Caliper, points max. Mmn. AV. Concora Flat p.s.i. Max. Mi. Crush, Av. Single-Face Flat Crush, p.s.i. Max. Min. Av. Runabil-ity ? ? 1.*8 11.* 1.*5 1.* * * ? 1.*6 11. * 1 * :38.6 ) ' * at 6 f.p.n. a at 6 f.p.m.1b at 6 f.p.m. b at 6 fn.m,.b at 6 f.o.rn.a -crrent Machine Average: C~mulative Machine Average: uacflfl Factor. % achnan Index, % a Y.ith 1/2 lb./in. tension. ':.ith 1 l)6./in, tension.. I-