Ect Test

L86 1'LZ Kjenjqaj
UnflISNI dJ3dVd NV3I8i3W'V

3HI JIO
V-ode9i SSGJBOJd V
euo p~ode9j
t7Z-969Z 4erOfJd
.
ADO1ONHO33J (133) HsnlH3 MmG azivo8 aNISWAOO
1' 1
III
II
q::I
,I
i! i
1 8N3
NOTICE & DISCLAIMER
The Institute of Paper Chemistry (IPC) has provided a high standard of professional service and has exerted its best efforts
within the time and funds available for this project. The information and conclusions are advisory and are intended only for
the internal use by any company who may receive this report. Each company rpust decide for itself the best approach to solv-
ing any problems it may have and how, or whether, this reported information should be considered in its approach.
IPC does not recommend particular products, procedures, materials, or services. These are included only in the interest of
completeness within a laboratory context and budgetary constraint. Actual products, procedures, materials, and services used
may differ and are peculiar to the operations of each company.
In no event shall IPC or its employees and agents have any obligation or liability for damages, including, but not limited to,
consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with any company's use of, or inability to use, the reported informa-
tion. IPC provides no warranty or guaranty of results.
.- -k
THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY

Post Office Box 1039
Appleton, Wisconsin 54912
~ i~i
~w
:?~i~i~l Phone: 414/734-9251
Telex: 469289
March 27, 1987
TO
MEMBERS OF THE FOURDRINIER KRAFT BOARD GROUP
OF THE
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE
Project 2695-24, Report One
COMBINED BOARD EDGE CRUSH (ECT) TECHNOLOGY
This study was directed toward improving Edge Crush Test (ECT) measurement
technology by developing a safer, simpler, and more efficient method of
sample preparation and testing. The specific objective was to compare ECT
results obtained with unwaxed specimens prepared using newer ECT sample
cutting and supporting procedures with results obtained using the current
TAPPI method.
An alternative ECT test procedure using unwaxed 2 x 2 in. specimens was

developed which compares favorably with the TAPPI procedure specifying waxed
end specimens. The test averages are about equal. Within sample test varia-
bility is usually much less with the new procedure than is obtained using the
TAPPI procedures.
The 2-inch height dimension of the specimen is cut using a two bladed pneuma-
tic Billerud ECT cutter. The cutter is made by Lorentzen and Wettre, Sweden.
The specimens may be cut to width with the same or some other convenient
cutter. The 2 x 2 inch specimens are tested using a modified Japanese ECT
test fixture (Model 105) marketed by the Sumitomo Corporation, Chicago, IL.
They modified the fixture for us to provide a controlled spring pressure of
up to 11.4 psi for double-wall boards. The fixture fits between the platens
of H&D and rigid platen testers. An easy-to-use design has been recommended
to the Sumitomo Corporation.
Box compression predictions were made using the McKee box compression
equations and each set of ECT data. Predictions made with both the TAPPI and
Japanese test fixture/Billerud cutter ECT values correlated well with actual
box compression results; however, the predictions were generally on the low
side. Slight adjustments of the McKee equation's constants corrected this.
Double-wall predictions were generally low, but the McKee equations were
derived using only single-wall data.
1043 East South River Street

-- -
Members of the Fourdinier Kraft Board Group March 27, 1987

American Paper Institute Page 2
Additional information on other test methods is also summarized in this

report. These included a SCAN-method/Billerud cutter combination and a
Weyerhaeuser holder/Weyerhaeuser cutter combination.
After you have had an opportunity to review the report we will appreciate any
comments you may have.
Yours very truly,
William J. Whitsitt
Group Leader
Containers Group
Paper Materials Division
WJW/sb
Enclosure

L961 'LZ AXzen.jqa
ASjjTwaqD jdea jo ain~ilsul a{j jo uo~ss~waad
uall~im ssaidxa aqja jnoqioTm panpoizdai aspua1eipo
jo pa~doo jzo Auedwoo anoX aplslno pasolos~p
.xo paluuiwassip aq ol lou sT pue Aluo asn leiau
.lno4( .30 paqs~u..nfl 91 u~aiai pau~eluoZa uojiwwiojul
SIflIIISNI S~dVd NYODDI3NV
3HI d~o
lioda- ssai~o~id V
auoj lodaa
mnug *V axpj puv
'13 s3q -a ai.nx
~Z-969Z 309fO~d
AOO0IONHO32L (103) HSflO1 3OU2 aGiVOR uGNIqNoO
uTsuoosTM 'uola1 ddy
M~ISIW3HO XIdVd 30 SIflIIISNI 3H1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
ECT TEST EQUIPMENT 5
Sample Cutters 5
Test Support Fixtures 8
Compression Testing Machines 10
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 12
ECT Specimen Size and Tester Factors 12
Compression Testing Machines 12
Sample Height 12
Weyerhaeuser Test Fixture Wedge Spacing 13
Sample Cutting Procedures 14
Comparison of SCAN and Weyerhaeuser Test Procedures 15
Japanese Test Fixture 21
Modified Japanese Test Fixture 28
Japanese Test Fixture - Spring Comparison 33
Box Compression Study 40
McKee Formulas 40
Modified Formulas 44
CONCLUSIONS 50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 52
LITERATURE CITED 53
APPENDIX 54
Appleton, Wisconsin
COMBINED BOARD EDGE CRUSH (ECT) TECHNOLOGY
SUMMARY
This study was directed toward improving Edge Crush Test (ECT)
measurement technology by developing a safer, simpler, and more efficient method
of sample preparation and testing. The specific objective was to compare ECT
results obtained with newer ECT sample cutting and supporting procedures using
unwaxed specimens with results obtained using the current TAPPI method. Three
alternate ECT procedures involving several types of sample cutters and holders
were compared to the standard TAPPI ECT procedure. Approximately 200 lots
ranging from 150 lb. single-wall (SW) to 500 lb. double-wall (DW) boards were
tested. Box compression comparisons were made for approximately 50 lots.
The Japanese ECT test fixture, marketed by Sumitomo Corporation, used
in combination with the 2-inch Billerud cutter, was found to compare the most
favorably with the TAPPI method. Results obtained with the original hand-
tightened version of the fixture showed excellent agreement with TAPPI results,
and exhibited lower variability. Later work with a spring-operated version of
the fixture showed ECT results to be sensitive to clamping pressure. Double-
wall board and high series single-wall board required a higher clamping pressure
to achieve good comparison with TAPPI results. A single set of springs (with
spring constant K = 20.4 lb/inch) which applied pressures of 7.1 psi (on 150-mil
caliper board) and 11.6 psi (on 300-mil caliper board) appeared to work well for
all board series, although a lower pressure could be used for lightweight
boards. An easy-to-use design involving the original fixture fitted with the
appropriate springs has been recommended to the Sumitomo Corporation.

Project 2695-24 -2- Report One
Box compression predictions were made using the McKee box compression
equations and each set of ECT data. Predictions made with both the TAPPI and
Japanese test fixture/Billerud cutter ECT values correlated well with actual box
compression results; however, the predictions were generally on the low side.
Slight adjustments of the McKee equation's constants corrected this. Double-
wall predictions were generally low, but the McKee equations were derived using
only single-wall data.
The two other ECT procedures investigated included a SCAN-method/
Billerud cutter combination and a Weyerhaeuser holder/Weyerhaeuser cutter com-
bination. ECT results were considerably lower than TAPPI values using these
methods, as were the corresponding box compression predictions. Sample height
was also investigated and found to have no effect on ECT in the range of 1.5-2.0
inches. Wedge spacing in the Weyerhaeuser test fixture was not a factor in the
range (-2)-(+4) mils around the recommended "snug fit".
Several types of rigid-platen compression testing machines were com-
pared to the flexible-platen H&D compression testing machine, and no significant
difference in ECT results was detected.

Project 2695-24 -3- II Report One
INTRODUCTION
One of the important properties of corrugated board is its edgewise
compressive strength (ECT). ECT test results are used to predict top-load box
compression strength.
TAPPI method T811 describes the ECT test. Specimens are cut on a cir-
cular saw into two-inch widths (machine direction) and, depending on flute and
board type, 1.25-inch, 1.50-inch, or 2.00-inch heights (cross-machine direction).
The top and bottom 1/4 inch of the specimen is dipped in wax to provide support
during compression testing. After preconditioning and conditioning, the speci-
men is tested by placing it between the platens of a flexible-platen compression
testing machine with the flutes vertical.
The TAPPI ECT test requires operator care and is very time consuming.
For these reasons we investigated other methods of cutting and supporting speci-
mens to make the test quicker and safer. Other cutting methods investigated
included the hand-operated Weyerhaeuser and Japanese knife-cutters, and the
automatic, dual-blade Billerud knife-cutter. To avoid waxing, the methods used
to support the specimen during testing included the SCAN-method support blocks
(see SCAN-P33:71)*, the Weyerhaeuser test fixture (see TAPPI method UM-814), and
a Japanese test fixture marketed by the Sumitomo Corporation. Using these
sample cutting and supporting techniques we compared ECT values to those
obtained using the TAPPI method.
A secondary objective was to compare ECT results obtained on new rigid-
platen compression testing machines to those obtained on conventional flexible-
*Scandinavian Pulp, Paper, and Board Testing Committee; Edgewise Crush

Resistance of Corrugated Board.
platen machines. The original TAPPI method (T811) mandates the use of a
flexible-platen compression testing machine. In recent years new compression
testers have been introduced which utilize fixed platens equipped with a load
cell. TAPPI has revised method T811 to permit use of these machines. (See
TAPPI method T823.)

Project 2695-24 -5- . Report One·
ECT TEST EQUIPMENT. ,
Several different sample cutting procedures have been introduced in
the past few years in an effort to eliminate saw-cutting. In this study we
investigated three such procedures: the Weyerhaeuser knife-cutter, the dual-
blade Billerud knife-cutter, and the Japanese knife-cutter. Each has the advan-
tage of being safer and quicker than saw-cutting; we tested to see which, if
any, works as well. Alternate ways to support the specimen during testing have
also been developed in order to avoid waxing. We studied the Weyerhaeuser test
fixture and the Japanese test fixture, along with the SCAN-method support
blocks. Finally, we tested two rigid-platen compression testing machines and an
Instron to compare with a flexible-platen testing machine. All of these are
described in greater detail below.
SAMPLE CUTTERS
The Weyerhaeuser knife-cutter is pictured in Fig. 1. It has a
plastic block into which an industrial blade is clamped. The amount of exposed
blade can be adjusted to the caliper of board to be cut. The block rides on the
combined board, which rests on a plywood base. The base has two metal guides at
right angles to each other which hold the combined board in place. The operator
cuts the board by pushing the plastic block along one of the guides. Both
machine and cross-machine direction cuts can be made, but only in two-inch
widths. ,
The Billerud cutter, made by Lorentz & Wettre (L&W), is an automatic
device which uses air pressure to drive the cutting blades (Fig. 2). Two
blades are mounted on a moving carriage one or two inches apart, depending
on the cutter. The cutting edge of each blade is beveled on one side only and
mounted with the beveled edge facing outward. The specimen is cut cleanly by
the inside, unbeveled edge on each blade. To cut a specimen the operator simply
places a piece of combined board in front of the blades and activates the
carriage. The cross-direction cuts are made with this cutter; the board is
usually precut into two-inch machine-direction widths using a different method.
Care must be taken to make sure the blades are mounted squarely; shims are some-
times necessary. The blades must also be replaced after approximately 150 cuts
because of dulling.
Figure 1. Weyerhaeuser cutter.
Pictured in Fig. 3 is the Japanese cutter made by Sumitomo Corporation
of America, a division of Nippon T.M.C. Corporation, Japan. Similar to the
Weyerhaeuser cutter, the corrugated board is placed on a baseplate between two
guides and cut by pushing a carriage containing a blade over the board. The
guides are adjustable so that any width board may be cut.

-- Z
Figure 2. Billerud automatic cutter.
Figure 3. Japanese cutter.

TEST SUPPORT FIXTURES
Unwaxed specimens were supported during testing in several ways. One
involved using the SCAN-method support blocks described in SCAN-P33:71. These
are 2 x 2 x 20-cm metal ungrooved blocks which are used to hold the specimen
vertical. Once the upper platen begins loading the specimen, the blocks are
removed. Very similar to the TAPPI method, they do not supply any support
during the actual test. The blocks are pictured in Fig. 4.
6: s `""f r'- a ....;t:: .·
;<
·i
< 1'0 , ''... '4
· -n; a,
·· :>' %:
k· -·.'r`
4·P. `
;.jr·
r
P. ·1·· .', ..
,'~
··;·
;·: · `·
?·a 4.5 ·· !· :g
_, _ Ll
d.
''..·; r:
" Ppqp.
II"
·.
-h . :1 ··`·- J" . a`4.
· xzi·I
2. r· '·
. -.
··r -
.·:
i. "" ·t* :`:II i
r .i
Figure 4. Support blocks used in SCAN-P33:71 (left) and TAPPI T811

(right) methods.
The Weyerhaeuser test fixture, Fig. 5, provides direct support to
the loaded edges of an unwaxed sample. It has adjustable slots, beveled
slightly, which clamp the upper and lower 1/4 inch of the specimen. Specimens
of any height may be tested with this jig.

Project 2695-24 -9- ... Report One
Figure 5. Weyerhaeuser test fixture.
Sumitomo's Japanese test fixture (JTF) also provides direct support to
the loaded edges of an unwaxed sample (Fig. 6). The clamps, unbeveled, support
a full 2 cm of the specimen on the top and bottom. The fixture is designed for
60-mm-height specimens; two-inch heights work very well. ECT values must be
corrected by adding 1.12 lb. to the reading taken from the compression tester to
take into account the weight of the upper half of the fixture. In the original
design these clamps were tightened by hand. Later versions used a torque wrench
and finally springs to achieve a constant clamping pressure as described in
later pages.
Project 2695-24 -10- I Report One
, "-·
: ,X"?:k;
p a5.;,YFS-j
r ,··
b : -*tBifL'4'
r dii ·
.xlkY·
ir: i
fiaifg ·14"
; · · ·' ·7 .· I
.
.L 1
.
* i ·.·. '. I 1
·
Figure 6. Sumitomo's Japanese test fixture (JTF), Model D-105.
COMPRESSION TESTING MACHINES
Two types of rigid-platen testing machines were investigated. Both
have a stiff upper platen which is driven at a constant rate, and a rigid lower
platen equipped with a load cell. The test fixtures described above are placed
directly on the lower platen. These machines, pictured in Fig. 7 and 8, are
made by Testing Machines, Incorporated (TMI) and L&W, respectively. We also set
up one of our Instron machines to test in the same manner. These three testers
were compared to the Hinde & Dauch (H&D) flexible-platen testing machine.
OUTqavI BUT~sal
,, I I " , ",
-
all
v I
, I j
/
//
I
.--
-4
t
i O" \
I"I.-
in
i I_
..-- I- -- , --- -,-- .-
'Ouppem 2Uj19s4
uo~ssaidwoo uaavTd-pTS2T
au lodaI IT
-IT- VZ-969Z IDOFOJa
-pnillTIa qou]-[ 'jx9N -s42laqO jo 2ue.2 s I4 .q30ij s9Mfnsai IDS UO 133OJja .OPPW L
aA~Tl :jOu PIP I'1BIa4 aTdmvS -Z aIqvL aes 'jaisal Mq'jaI uo paqsaq pil 'pexum
1M2IOH aTawes
I4no-mus -IS~
spa ~xvmL
oO*L9 8 1P7 92JAV
PT- Z'7 9 *99 z I i7ii
z 0- S9*9 ZOZL 1199 9 IV7 9 *I
z I [it
9.99
Ell+ 9*SS Z'C z I fit o *C
SIT 14DUT '3q21e4 9Tdiues
M~.S
qT OSE M~S qT SL MIS qT OOZ MlS qT 091
'I Qj( *dmloo
*sialsal uoise81dwoo lo uos~aeduio~ r1al
9Tq~jvmooai sau~qoeUI Bu~isa u~jv~d-pITBTz lvql S91OTPUT XA~AnfS P94TET1 STU
'I 9TqvI ul umot9 ~ea slnsa. 9W41 -sjoT a1dmps ano] 2uisn suamjTzds pua-paxezm
':In:) mesqTA SOUpq~m Suplsa .zno; aq uo pamuo;jad ~.atam s1993 jo
SauIMDVN NUTIsa9l uO 1 ssaidm
SN1O.DVa NE~SISH aNV SZIS NSWID~dS ILDS
SIUSHNs ao NOISSnOSIa
9uO--:j.ioda-a .. %-, ~~uO*
tg~~~V-%969 :tz)roi
~~~~.zod~~~~~
specimens. Thus sample height does not:appear to be a major factor, while wax-
ing does. This should permit using one height for ECT specimens from A-, B-, C-
flute, and multiwall boards, thus simplifying the ECT method.
Table 2. Comparison of sample heights.
ECT, lb/incha Comp.

.150 lb SW 200 lb SW 275 lb SW 350 lb SW Av.
1 inch height, 31.2 42.4 70.0 75.5 54.8

waxed, saw-cut
1 1/2 inch height 33.8 44.2 66.6 72.2 54.2

waxed, saw-cut
2 inch height, 31.9 41.0 61.4 72.2 51.6

waxed, saw-cut
1 inch height, un- 31.1 36.8 54.5 63.0 46.4

waxed, Billerud-cut
2 inch height, 32.2 37.2 54.4 68.0 48.0

unwaxed, saw-cut
aL&W tester.
Weyerhaeuser Test Fixture Wedge Spacing
As described earlier, the Weyerhaeuser test fixture has adjustable
wedges which clamp the top and bottom of the specimen. The wedge spacing is
usually set so that the specimen is held at middepth of the lower holder when
resting-in the groove under its own weight. This wedge setting gives a pinch
fit. Unwaxed specimens were tested on the L&W tester at several wedge settings
other than the pinch-fit setting, using both.saw-cut and Weyerhaeuser-cut speci-
mens. The results, summarized in Table 3, indicate that small deviations in
wedge setting do not result in major errors.

Table 3. Effect of gap width using Weyerhaeuser holder.
ECT, lb/incha Comp. Diff.,

150 lb SW 200 lb SW' 275 lb SW 350 lb SW Av. %
Saw-Cut Specimens
-0.02 inch gap 32.2 38.4 53.8 70.1 48.6
0.00 inch gap - 32.2 37.2 54.6 68.0 48.0 -1.2
+0.02 inch gap 32.0 40.6 55.3 72.4 50.1 +3.1
+0.04 inch gap 32.6 41.0 55.0 71.9 50.1 +3.1
Weyerhaeuser Knife-
Cut Specimens
-0.02 inch gap 29.3 38.0 54.9 67.0 47.3
0.00 inch gap 29.4 35.8 58.0 63.2 46.6 -1.5
+0.02 inch gap 29.2 37.6 57.0 64.5 47.1 -0.4
+0.04 inch gap 29.0 36.2 56.9 53.5 46.4 -1.9
Waxed-specimen
average from
Table 1 34.7 43.8 67.0 74.0
aL&W tester, unwaxed specimens.
Sample Cutting Procedures
We compared sample cutting methods by testing Billerud-cut (1-inch),
Weyerhaeuser-cut (2-inch), and saw-cut (2-inch) unwaxed specimens on the L&W
tester. In Table 4 it is shown that ECT results obtained with the knife cut-
ters are only a few percent below those obtained from saw-cut specimens. This
indicates that either knife cutting method should work satisfactorily in place of
saw-cutting if the knives are properly maintained. .. '

Project 2695-24 -15- . Report One
Table 4. Comparison of sample. cutting.methods.
ECT, lb/incha Comp. Diff.,

150 lb SW 200 lb SW 275 lb SW 350 lb SW Av. %
Billerud cutter
(1-inch height)b 31.1 36.8 54.5 - 63.0 46.4 -3.3
Weyerhaeuser cutter
(2-inch height) 29.4 35.8 58.0 63.2 -46.6 -2.9
Saw cut
(2-inch height) 32.2 37.2 54.5 68.0 48.0
aL&W tester, unwaved specimens.

bSCAN ECT specimen height.
Briefly summarizing, it appears that sample height and fairly wide
variations in wedge spacing of the Weyerhaeuser test fixture do not have a major
effect on ECT results. All of the alternate sample cutting methods appeared to
work satisfactorily. These are examined further in the next section using dif-
ferent sample supporting techniques.
COMPARISON OF SCAN AND WEYERHAEUSER TEST PROCEDURES
Based on the previous results we investigated the following test
methods:
1. SCAN-method, Billerud-cut, 1-inch height, unwaxed.

(SCAN-P33:71)
2. Weyerhaeuser holder, Weyerhaeuser knife-cut, 2-inch

height, unwaxed. (TAPPI method UM-814)
3. TAPPI standard: saw-cut, waxed edges, grooved blocks.

(T811)
Project .2695-24 -16- . . Report One'
Sixty-nine combined board-lots acquired from member companies were
tested on the H&D and L&W testers. The average ECT results for each series are
given in Tables 5 and 6, and the individual data are tabulated in Tables A1-A14
in the appendix. The Weyerhaeuser and SCAN/Billerud methods give about equal
load levels; however, both are about 16% lower than the. TAPPI standard results.
Table 5. Average ECT results, H&D tester.
ECT, lb/inch
Weyer- SCAN/ No.
TAPPI, haeuser, Diff., Billerud, Diff., of
waxed no wax % no waxa, % Lots
150 SW Av.. 33.70 27.55 -18.05 27.18 --19.38 11

Std. Dev. 3.47 2.57 3.59
175 SW Av. 37.47 30.27 -19.25 30.90 -17.28 16

,St,d. Dev., 4.37 4.22. 3.97
200 SW Av. 41.07 33.62 -17.81 33.05 -19.15- 13

Std. Dev. 4.75 3.37 2.92
275 SW Av. 55.20 45.23 -17.47 44.38 -19.00 14

Std. Dev. 7.25 4.58 4.76
200 DW Av. 52.93 52.73 -0.35 49.30 -6.65 2

Std. Dev. 3.08 2.58 0.71
\
275 DW Av. 63.66 57.04 -10.35 54.80 -13.67 8
Std. Dev. 4.03 4.56 2.54
350 DW Av. 66.61 57.99 12.69 57.65 -12.86 5

Std. Dev. 7.14. 5.15 2.50
Composite
average 46.74 39.25 -16.37 38.69 -17.27 69
Total
aCut with Billerud 1-inch cutter.

03911vos qa0w 2UTIVOTPUT jamol A1142TIS gig qUOTjvTqajOD POqjqm
pna9TTTR/N`VDS 941 pasn sapas pavoq UT auva apTm aqi ol anp XIijvd 's9svD TTV
UT P002 AT9ATIVT93 93V SOPR3? TIE JOAO SuOTIVI93aOD '01 Pug 6 -2Ta UT paqdpj2
9JB 39IS93 MVI 941 mOJJ WIVQ -L 9Tqvl UT POISTT OSTV 93V Pug POIVTnoIvo aaam
S9Pva2 TTV JOAO spox4jew uaatAlaq suO1IVT9aJO0 'PO419m NVOS 9tp JOJ CB-O-LS-0
ol pasoddo su 'LO-O-ZL-0 wOJJ 2UTBUga sIu9TDT3JaOD 4ITm 'PO1429w iddyl R41 14IT14
aellaq P93vT9aJOD poi4jew jasnavqjaAam aqj STTv39u9f) -L alqvl UT p9jvInqvi
9Jv sIOI Hvm-alBuTs a4l 309 spoqlaw u9amlaq suolivleajoo apea2-ull4iTM
-jalino qzuT-I pnaaITTq tp-Tm 3nov
96'Z- '76'1- 9L*Z- 3991 C19H
2uTpuodsaaaoo
uloij *3jTa %
Tv.:101
69 L6'91- SS'LE W 9T- 92vagAv
9ITsodwoo
*Aaa *PIS
WE WE f7Z 09
9 OZ*ST- V7 *S 9 Sg'Zl- 10'L9 OLIS9 .AV Ma OSE
6Z*Z 6V +II I 1 'Aga 'PIS
9 08'tT- L9'CS 98,01- TE19S CZ00 .AV MCI SLZ
i7i 10 9Z0Z LS'O IA90 .*PIS
Z 96*L- CZ '6V 9S,9- OOOOS OSOCS .AV MG 00Z
01 Is . W 900L 'Aaa *PIS
VI 6V'OZ- ZS'ZV 86'9T- W E91CS .Av Ms SLZ
.Ago PIS
Z6*Z 190Z 6S "7
El 0V81- 96'TE SI'ST- WEE WU 0AV Ms 00Z
I 0'17 11 WS 'Aga 0P3S
91 OL'91- WOE 61 'ST- CZ'6Z LRISC .AV MS SLI
0Aqa OPIS
WE ST 'Z C i7 oC
II TE*9T- C8*9Z WSI- 16'9Z 901ZE OAV Ms 091
C3:4 Oj % exem Ou % xvm Ou. paxem
10 4 0 ji la 1pnj9TTTR "JJT(i 'Jasnoeq II a CTVI
*ON -. 2exam
--
lqz)uT/qTa
-aa:jsa:j 1419,1 s:jIns9j jDa 92vaeAV -9 aTqvi
. auo jjodaH -Li- VZ-969Z IDOrOJJ
'(El-II ',?TJ) SPOillaw aajql TTv joj punoj sT uoTjeT
-a3300 3u911aDxa-0I-POOD 'Poqlam Isal 110va a0i sialsai uaamla q suo1julaiaoo aiql
aJv I 9Tqpl jo molloq aqj IV -jaisai uoTssaidwoo u9jvjd_9jqTx9jj aiql jo asoqj
molaq juaojad maj v ATuO OPEJ8AP sanTvA 10a jaisal uoTssaidwoD UaIvTdpT2Tj atil
-quawaaa2v POOB UT 9JaA 839:3sal OM attl SL404S 9 9Tqvj UT auTj 38VT OU
-jalino qz)uT-I, pn.291ITq 143P4 3nav
966'0 LVO WO 86'0 WO (11H vpnaOTTT9/NVOS
l'A Mq'l Lpna9TTTq/NVDS
996'0 Colo Wo WO LVO GVH 398navqjaAaM
lSA Mjj jasnapqjaAaM
L86*0 WO WO 96'0 ZVO C119H idavi
lS.A Mg-] JddVj,
a1H lsA M-9-1
VV6'0 6970 Lslo 9900 Z810 vpnjaTTTR/NV3S
SA Ijayl
S96'0 LVO 9L'O LVO 0010 J98nael4JOA8M
lSA JdaVI
M91 UO 93891
a
LWO 69'0 Colo OVO RLIO ppna9TTT9/NVOS
'SA JdaVj
Z96*0 ZVO LVO ZL*O i7slo
l8A JdjVj
C11H UO 8-3991
P0439N 103
SLZ ON SLT OST
sapeaD TTV (MS) OPVJD-uTq3TM
.3UqTDTJJaOO UOT3vl9JJOO
-sjaisaI, in pup spoqiam in uaamlaq SUOTIV193300 % aTqvl
aub ljo.dad . -ST- 'Z-969Z 309FOJd
Project 2695-24-1-eorOn -19- Report One
1001
75.
C
"Z *fa a
hJ 2 5
0
ECT. WEYERHAEUSER. I.W. lb/In

Figure 9. TAPPI ECT tests -vs.Weyerhaeuser unwaxed tests, L&W tester.
1001
75. a
C
50* a~j~ -
a
a
a
a
1AJ 2 3 -
wi 2 - ___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
I_
ECT, SCAN/BILL.ERUD, L&W. lb/in

Figure 10. TAPPI ECT tests vs. SCAN/Bi'llerud unwaxed tests, L&W tester.
Project 2695-24-2-RorOn -20- Report-.-Qne
75.-
C
a3
50-
Liiw--
251
0i 25 5I 75.,i 160
ECT. TAPPI, H&DI lb/In
IFigure It.. TAPPI ECT tests, L&W tester vs. H&D tester.
~75.
3:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c1
500
.25-
0
0 25 50 75~~; 100
ECT, WEYERHAEUSER. H&D, lb/in
Figure. 12.,. Weyerhaeuser untaxed ECT tests, L&W tester vs. H&D tester.
100
C:
.0 235
5
I50
Ns
0
0 E25 SC 75 100
ECT, SCAN/BILLERUD, H&D, Ib/in
Figure 13. SCAN/Billerud unwaxed ECT tests, L&W tester vs. H&D tester.
Within-lot variability of the ECT tests was also analyzed. See
Table 8. Both the Weyerhaeuser and the SCAN/Billerud methods gave lower coef-
ficients of variation than the Standard TAPPI Method, with the SCAN/Billerud
method results exhibiting the lowest variation. This is probably due to the
simultaneous automatic cutting of both loaded edges.
JAPANESE TEST FIXTURE
After the above work was completed D. Friedman of Stone Container
Corp. reported evaluating several combined board samples using Sumitomo's
Japanese cutter and ECT test fixture (JTF). He obtained ECT values which
averaged about 5% lower than TAPPI values, and within-lot variabilities which
were also lower than TAPPI's. We sent Mr. Friedman samples of the four lots on
which we did our preliminary work. He tested the lots using the Japanese cutter
and test fixture, and also using the TAPPI method. His results are summarized
t
in Table 9.
Table 8. Test variability.
Average CoefficiEenit of Variation, %

Weyer- SCAN/ Weyer- SCAN/ No.
TAPPI, hauser, Billerud, TAPPI, hauser, Billerud, of
waxed no wax no waxa waxed no wax no waxa Lots
H&D Tester L&W tester
150 SW 9.1 8.8 6.8 10.0 7.6 6.4 11
175 SW 7.5 6.6 5.6 8.9 7.4 5.3 16
200 SW 8.6 7.1 5.7 9.2 7.7 5.9 13
275 DW 7.3 8.5 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.1 8
350 DW 7.2 5.7 4.2 8.8 6.2 5.0 5
Average 8.3 7.5 5.8 8.8 7.3 5.8 67
Because of the favorable results we borrowed the Japanese cutter and
test fixture from Stone Container to explore the possibility of including it in
this project. We carried out a similar set of tests which are summarized in
Table 10. The results were again encouraging, with ECT results close to the
corresponding TAPPI values, and within-lot variability consistently low. The
most encouraging results were obtained using the recently acquired 2-inch
Billerud cutter with the Japanese test fixture.
After completing the preliminary work above, we retested our combined
board lots using the following method:
4. Sumitomo's Japanese test fixture (JTF), Billerud-cut,

2-inch height, unwaxed.
'1
0
,rr
Table 9. ECT results obtained with Japanese test fixture by Stone Container. O
0o
cn
ECT, Ib/inch
150 lb SW 200 lb SW 275 lb SW 350 lb IW Composite
(64100A) (64101) (64102A) (64104) (Av.)
Av. Diff., %a Av. Diff., Za Av. Diff., Xa Av. Diff., Xa Av. Diff., Za
IPC, saw-cut, waxed (TAPPI) 32.3 -- 44.5 -- 70.9 - 76.0 -- 55.9
Stone, saw-cut, waxedb (TAPPI) 31.0 -4.02 47.1 5.84 68.4 -3.53 74.3 -2.24 55.2 -1.25
Japanese-cut, waxedb 32.3 0.00 47.5 5.74 70.4 -0.71 79.6 4.74 57.5 2.86
Japanese-cut, JTFb 33.4 3.41 43.1 -3.15 65.0 -8.32 70.1 -7.76 52.9 -5.37
Japanese-cut, no JTFb 28.6 -11.46 34.8 -21.80 52.5 -25.95 64.5 -15.13 45.1 -19.32
IPC, Weyerhaeuser method 27.9 -13.62 38.5 -13.48 56.7 -20.03 57.8 -23.95 45.2 -19.14
ECT, Coefficient of Variation, Z

150 lb SW 200 lb SW 275 lb SW 350 lb DW Composite
(64100A) (64101) (64102A) (64104) (Av.)
IPC, saw-cut, waxed (TAPPI) 8.61 3.96 3.22 4.17 4.99
Stone, saw-cut waxedb (TAPPI) 10.74 4.42 10.29 3.42 7.22
Japanese-cut, waxedb 6.32 3.33 5.57 2.31 4.38
Japanese-cut, JTFb 4.04 2.30 2.98 1.60 2.73
Japanese-cut, no JTFb 3.74 5.03 5.03 1.97 3.94
IPC, Weyerhaeuser method 4.16 9.61 2.56 3.98 5.08
aBased on IPC saw-cut, waxed results as reference. 0

bTests carried out by D. Friedman, Stone Container. r
L1
0
ID
o
rr
O0
1o
Table 10. IPC results with Japanese test fixture. I
4>
ECT, Ib/inch
Test (64100A) (64101) (64102A) (64104) (Av.)
Lab. Av. Diff., Za Av. Diff., %a Av. Diff., Xa Av. Diff., %a Av. Diff., %a
Saw-cut, waxed IPC 32.3 44.5 70.9 76.0 55.9
Japanese-cut, JTFb Stone 34.0 5.26 43.7 -1.80 65.6 -7.48 70.7 -6.98 53.5 -4.29
*
Billerud-cut, JTF IPC 36.0 11.46 43.2 -2.92 66.6 -6.06 72.6 -4.47 54.6 -2.33
Japanese-cut, JTF IPC 32.6 0.93 39.1 -12.13 59.6 -15.94 69.5 -8.55 50.2 -10.20
I
4:'
I
ECT, Coefficient of Variation, X
(64100A) (64101) (64102A) (64104) (Av.)
Saw-cut, waxed IPC 8.61 3.96 3.22 4.17 4.99
Japanese-cut, JTFb Stone 4.04 2.30 2.98 .1.60 2.73
Billerud-cut, JTF IPC 2.59 1.63 1.92 2.97 2.28
Japanese-cut, JTF IPC 6.76 3.49 3.22 2.29 3.94
aBased on IPC saw-cut, waxed results as reference.

bTests carried out by D. Friedman, Stone Container.
NOTE: Japanese test fixture results adjusted for upper platen weight; equivalent to adding
0.56 lb to the average in Ib/inch.
o
0
Table 11 summarizes the results by board series, with the actual data
tabulated in Tables A15-A21 in the appendix. In terms of overall averages the
JTF/Billerud ECT results are in very close agreement with the TAPPI tests.
Within-grade correlations with the TAPPI method are good, as is the correlation
over all board grades, shown in Fig.. 14. These coefficients are tabulated in
Table 12. Within-lot variability, shown in Table 13, was much lower with the
Japanese test fixture.
Table 11. Average ECT results, L&W tester.
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/ No.
TAPPI, Billerud, Diff., of
waxed no waxa % Lots
150 SW Av. 32.08 - 33.17 3.89 11

Std. Dev. 3.43 3.08
175 SW Av. 35.87 36.28 2.05 16

Std. Dev. 4.92 3.67
200 SW Av. 39.59 39.96 1.70 13

Std. Dev. 4.59 2.58
275 SW Av. 54.07 53.61 -0.24 13

Std. Dev. 7.29 5.99
200 DW Av. 53.90 55.68 3.30 1

Std. Dev.
275 DW Av. 63.23 61.49 -2.40 8

Std. Dev. 4.14 2.97
350 DW Av. 65.70 64.89 -0.54 5

Std. Dev. 6.24 2.17
Composite
average 45.26 45.28 1.13 67
Total

Project 2695-24 -26- Report One,
100
75
C 0
Oua
.1
1B
- 350
cP a
25*
0 25 50 75 100
ECT, JTF/BILLERUD, L&W, Ib/ln
Figure 14. TAPPI ECT tests vs. JTF/Billerud unwaxed tests, L&W tester.
Table 12. Correlations between ECT methods.
Correlation Coefficient
Within-Grade (SW) All Grades
150 175 - 200 · 275
ECT Method
Tests on L&W
TAPPI vs.
Weyerhaeuser 0.80 0.87 0.76 0.87 0.965
TAPPI vs.
SCAN/Billeruda 0.82 0.68 0.57 0.68 0.946
TAPPI vs.
JTF/Billerudb 0.67 0.68 0.75 0.80 0.955

bCut with Billerud 2-inch cutter.
u93eidPT2Ta a~a ap 'Aq p9:ovTd9.i A fnjssazDfls aq uez sa~9 uOTss9.1dwoo
U93VTd alTX1 JaPTO 91i 3Beip ewjTPUi sialsal uaamq SuOST~udwoo
10a UT 3UMwa32v 9soTp a13 go aspa P0tp39i IddVlt 91 azvTdai o3 asTw0o1d
3sOW 94 smO4qs uOT~vu~qwoo pnl'TTT9/dlf a'13 3eql 83v0TPuT snsaI man
,walqoad a aq iou p~nol~s puv
IsenTeA 3Jsa A0[ UT V3flsa. A Tm~ssazau 30u PTP sT43 'aaA~mOH -afn~xIg sp41 iq3V
BUJ:389 uaqm~ pajabzoo ua~;o anT~ej 92p 3eq3 PapOTu mo~v~do-9Mj
M1P
I~
-aalino qouT-Z pnaelIT9
MUi qi ooz
I ~j01 j noipj: e
99 9 09
L9
l, 0
V9 9
9 aO7LI
t19 MGa SLZ
6*
iMa ooZ
LI
IOL M4S SL
cI
M'S OOZ
Z69
91 MbS SLI
6001
11 MbS Os1
s: 0- exam OU
JO0 'pna9TTTS 'Idavi.
I O /Iri
% " .B JO 'J;OD -AV
.391sal Mq-j 'po,41am pni9jTTq/ajf 1AiTTTqvTJ9A 1891 El 9Tqvj
. auo jaoda-d - _zz- -LZ-
amod~~~~~~
~~uO 3" Vo3a
~~~V-969Z
MODIFIED JAPANESE TEST FIXTURE
The clamps on the Japanese test fixture are hand-tightened until
"snug." FKBG members pointed out that this is a possible source of operator
error and recommended that it be corrected. A clamping arrangement which exerts
a constant pressure independent of the operator is desired, and this implies
that the correct clamping pressure (or range of pressures) be determined.
Initially each clamp was tightened with a torque wrench as shown in Fig. 15.
Using an Instron we were able to determine the relationship between the torque
applied and clamping pressure plotted in Fig. 16. Using one single-wall lot,
we tested ECT values over a range of torques, i.e., clamping pressures, as shown
in Fig. 17. While the ECT results are somewhat erratic, it would appear from
this limited study that ECT is relatively constant over a broad range of
clamping pressures. We next retested nine of the original lots at two clamping
pressures (torques) in the middle of this range, 12.1 psi and 15.6 psi. The
results, listed in Table 14, were promising, and we relayed this information to
the Sumitomo Corp. along with our request for a modified fixture.
to clamp. -. i ]_'
, , . . . fs
^v^
. ''' P., ., * C -,
..* -</ . *: . -*.. , is M'A.-^ B Ia . ,o;.
Figure
Figure 15.
15. Sumitomo's Japanese test fixture (JTF)
Sumitomo's (JTF) with torque wrench attached
to clamp.
25'
a
20' a
a X
a x
x
x
UlS
x x
x
0 X
*10. a x
I.
g ax
aI! o TOP CLAP

5-
BI x BOTM CLAMP
aI
0
0 5 10 iS 20 25
TORQUE, in-oz
Figure 16. Relationship between pressure on specimen and torque

applied to clamp.
140
a
o
0
130
r_ oa
0D a
20 O.
a
a
120
110
0 5 10 15 20 25
PRESSURE, psi
Figure 17. Effect of clamping pressure on ECT.
I I I
Project 2695-24 -30- Report One:
Table 14. Effect of clamping pressure using Japanese test fixture.
ECT, lb/inch
Original
Fixture K=10.1
(Hand- Torque Wrench lb/inch
Series Lot TAPPI Tightened) 12.1 psi 15.6 psi Springs
150-B 127 32.60 34.56 35.24 36.05 36.90

150-C 123 29.00 32.96 32.74 30.85 31.60
175-B 109 33.35 35.40 38.15 40.10 37.60

175-C 112 37.20 34.37 37.77 39.45 34.00
200-B 116 44.00 40.98 38.89 42.25 38.50

200-C 111 34.90 37.40 38.60 38.95 38.00
275-B 124 57.30 58.52 58.90 60.90 58.10

275-C 101 50.15 46.83 53.85 48.90 53.30
275-DW 114 62.80 66.77 68.08 69.65 68.20
Average 42.37 43.09 44.69 45.23 44.02

% Diff. 1.70 5.49 6.77 3.91
The modified fixture, pictured in Fig. 18, uses springs to supply a
constant clamping pressure. The clamps lock open for removal and insertion of
the specimen, then slide closed when released to exert a stable, repeatable
clamping pressure for a given caliper. Since the clamping pressure increases
with increasing board caliper, 150 mil spacers were included to be used with
single-wall specimens. This maintains a relatively constant clamping pressure
over all single-wall and double-wall board calipers. The fixture came with
springs which had a spring constant of 10.1 lb/inch and produced a clamping
pressure of only 5.3 psi at a clamp opening of 300 mils. (See the top of Table
15.) While this pressure was lower than desired, the arrangement was tested
using the same nine lots mentioned above. These results, listed in the last
column of Table 14, compared fairly well with our previous work. Next, about 20
of the new lots were tested and compared with the corresponding TAPPI values.
Because they compared favorably, all 150 new lots were tested with the modified
fixture as is.
;i i'.-1
PWK
1~~~~~~~~1
I I·
Figure 18. Modified Japanese test fixture (JTF) received from Sumitomo.
Top clamp is locked open.
Table 15. Spring data.

2 Pressure Equation
Spring Clamping Pressure (lb/finch )
Constant at Caliper of: X = Caliper
lb/inch 0 mils 150 mils 3()0 mils Y = Clamping Pressure
10.1 0.4 2 .8a 5.3 Y = 16.3 x + 0.4a
16.6 2.2 5.6 9.5 Y = 24.3 x + 2.1
20.4 3.2 7.1 11.6 Y = 28.0 x + 3.1
a150 mil spacers were used with single-wall lots.

Add 150 mils to the caliper to get the correct
clamping pressure used.
These new lots ranged from 150-lb single-wall to 500-lb double-wall
boards. The modified Japanese test fixture was used with the K=10.1 lb/inch
springs. The 150-mil spacers were inserted when single-wall specimens were
Project 2695-24 -32- .1' ---"Report One
tested, resulting in a relatively constant clamping pressure of approximately
5.3 psi. These results are summarized in Table 16 and Fig. 19; detailed-
data can be found in Tables A22-A29 in the appendix. Within-lot correlation
coefficients range from 0.805-0.932, while the overall correlation coefficient
is an excellent'0.991. The JTF/Billerud method's within-lot variability
averaged lower than the TAPPI method's in all but one series, with the overall
average being lower than TAPPI's. The overall average ECT is 2.7% lower than
the corresponding TAPPI value, which is not as good as with the original fix-
ture. Close examination of the average percent difference reveals that the dif-
ference is about 0.5% low up to and including 200-lb single-wall boards, about
3.0% low for the 275-lb single-wall to 350-lb double-wall series, and about 6.6%
low for the 500-lb double-wall series. The discovery that the differences become
greater as the board gets heavier, along with the weaker than desired clamping
pressure, indicates that a stronger clamping pressure is required. This
hypothesis was examined by retesting several-lots with stronger springs in the
fixture.
140 - o n
125 - S
re0
95 -
65-
E o 0
2 35 50 f65 80 10 125 140

JTF/Billerud ECT, lb/inch
Figure 19. TAPPI ECT vs. JTF/Billerud ECT, K= 10.1 lb/inch springs, all 150
lots.
Table.16. TAPPI ECT vs. JTF/Billerud ECT, K = 10.1 lb/inch springs.
ECT lb/inch Variability No.

JTF/ Diff., Corr. JTF/ of
Series TAPPI Billeruda Coeff. TAPPI Billeruda Lots
150 SW Av. 37.58 37.56 -0.07 0.805 5.9 3.7 24

Std. 2.48 2.38
175 SW Av. 39.85 39.66 -0.48 0.892 5.6 4.5 20

Std. 3.68 3.55
200 SW Av. 42.80 42.47 -0.78 0.880 6.1 4.1 24

Std. 3.73 3.94
275 SW Av. 62.87 60.94 -3.07 0.869 5.2 3.9 24

Std. 6.06 5.92
350 SW Av. 79.21 76.60 -3.29 0.932 5.0 4.1 12

Std. 5.50 3.80
275 DW Av. 71.36 68.68 -3.76 0.806 5.5 3.3 18

Std. 6.55 6.23
350 DW Av. 73.97 71.80 -2.94 0.888 5.8 3.7 20

Std. 8.83 7.93
500 DW Av. 115.53 107.91 -6.59 0.917 3.4 4.5 8

Std. 9.52 7.30
Composite Av. 59.16 57.54 -2.74 0.991 5.5 3.9 150

Total
JAPANESE TEST FIXTURE - SPRING COMPARISON
Stronger springs with a spring constant K = 16.6 lb/inch were acquired
from the Institute's shop. These springs were slightly longer, and this prevented
the use of the 150-mil spacers. However, since the heavier weight boards appear
to require a higher clamping pressure, the tests were performed without spacers.
A 150-mil specimen is clamped at approximately 5.6 psi, while a 300-mil specimen
is clamped at approximately 9.5 psi, as is described in the second row of Table
15. Twenty nine lots were retested and compared with the corresponding TAPPI
I
Project 2695-24 -34- IReport One
results, shown in Tables 17 and A30. The average percent difference dropped
from -2.8 to -2.1%. The trend of increasing differences with increasing board
weight is still evident, but to a lesser degree, as can be seen in Fig. 20 and
21. Next, even stronger springs were acquired from the Sumitomo Corp. With a
spring constant of 20.4 lb/inch, these springs exerted a clamping: pressure of 7.1
and 11.6 psi for board calipers of 150 and 300 mils, respectively. (See the
last row in Table 15.) For the same 29 lots, the average percent difference
dropped to -0.7%, as shown in Table 17 and Fig. 22. Only the 500-lb double-
wall results remain a little low. Within-lot variabilities are relatively
constant with increasing clamping pressure, always remaining lower than TAPPI
values, see Table 18.
Table 17. Summary of Spring Comparison Results.
Av. ECT, lb/inch

JTF/Billerud Methoda
K = 10.1 K = 16.6 K = 20.4: Number
lb/inch Diff., lb/inch Diff., lb/inch Diff., Of Lots
Series TAPPI Springs % Springs % Springs % Retested
150 SW: 35.80 35.93 0.35 35.95 0.42 35.93 0.35 2
275 SW 62.90 61.29 -2.56 62.00 -1.43 62.22 -1.08 7
350 SW 82.06 78.91 -3.84 79.90 -2.63 81.83 -0.28 5
275 DW 72.32 72.09 -0.32 70.82 -2.07 72.34 0.03 5
350 DW 75.04.. 72.13 -3.88 73.13 -2.55 74.77 -0.36 5
500 DW 114.12 107.74 -5.59 110.00 -3.61 111.12 -2.63 5
Av. 76.88 74.32 -2.84 75.01 :-2.11 76.,13 -0.70 29

Total

140-
125 o
110 -
95-
os
50-
35
Figure 20. TAPPI ECT vs. JTF/Billerud ECT, K = 10.1 lb/inch springs,
29 retested lots.
140 -
r'
r.
125 -
110
|c 0.989
95.
80 o
u
65
35-
20 35 50 65 0 95 110 125 140

29 retested lots.
Project 2695-24 -36- ' Report One,
1I
.S
l-.
u
U
'U
a:
0.
4:
140
29 retested lots.
Table 18. Comparison of ECT variability at various spring pressures.
Coefficient of Variation, %
JTF/Billerud Methoda No.
K = 10.1 K = 16.6 K = 20.4 of
lb/inch lb/inch lb/inch Lots
Series TAPPI Springs Springs Springs Retested
150 SW 7.2 4.2 3.9 3.6 2
275 SW 4.9 3.8 3.8 3.5 7
350 SW 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 5
275 DW 6.9 2.8 3.4 3.4 5
350 DW 4.9 3.5 3.3 3.2 5
500 DW 3.4 4.8 4.4 3.9 5
Av. 5.1 3.8 3.7 3.6 29

Total

While the agreement between the TAPPI and JTF/Billerud ECT test
methods using the K=20.4 lb/inch springs is excellent, one problem was encountered
with these strong springs, namely, difficulty in operating the clamps repeatedly.
Several hundred repetitions, necessary to test many lots, would be tiring for
the operator. However, the clamps of the original fixture are relatively easy
to operate with these springs, and a simple way was found to eliminate operator
error when hand-tightening these clamps. A schematic of the top view of the
fixture's clamps is shown in Fig. 23. Figure 24a is a schematic of the interior
of the clamp, viewed from the side, when the clamp is open. There is a region
where the clamp knob, while being tightened, becomes loose as the specimen takes
up the load from the springs. This point, where only the springs are allowed to
apply pressure to the specimen, is shown schematically in Fig. 24b. If the
operator stops tightening at this point, a constant clamping pressure is always
achieved, and operator error is removed. Figure 24c shows a clamp which is
over tightened, applying additional pressure. As a final test, the 29 lots were
rechecked with this arrangement, see Tables 19 and A31. The results were in
good agreement with the TAPPI ECT test results. This arrangement has been
recommended to Sumitomo as the final working design. It should be noted that
edge failure is still the predominant mode of failure with this fixture.
However, there is still no evidence to suggest that this results in low ECT
readings.
In brief summary, clamping pressure is again shown to affect ECT
results. The K = 20.4 lb/inch springs reach the lower end of the "safe pressure
range" discussed earlier, and it is desirable to stay on the low end of this
range to avoid crushing lighter-weight specimens. Tests indicate that the
Japanese test fixture with the 20.4 lb/inch springs gives ECT results which are in
very good agreement with the TAPPI values, in addition to lower variability.
Using these springs in the original fixture results in a quick; easy to operate
fixture which gives accurate and reproducible results.
Sample
I Clamp
Area Shown in Next Fig
Figure 23. Schematic of Japanese test fixture (JTF) clamp, top view.
Set Screw
To
Knob
of Clamp
Figure 24. Schematic of Japanese test fixture (JTF) clamp, interior view.
a. Clamp open.
b. Clamp properly closed; springs only applying pressure
to specimen.
c. Clamp overtightened; operator has applied additional
pressure to specimen.
Project 2695-24 -40-. '.Report ...One
Table 19. ECT results using K = 20.4 springs in original fixture.
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/Billerud Methoda
K = 20.4 lb/inch Springs
Number
Modified Diff.,. Original Diff., of Lots
Series TAPPI Fixture % Fixture % Retested
150 SW 35.80 35.93 0.35 35.64 -0.38 2
275 SW 62.90 62.22 -1.08 60.59 -3.28 7
350 SW 82.06 81.83 -0.28 77.15 -5.85 5
275 DW 72.32 72.34 0.03 72.05 -0.23 5
350 DW 75.04 74.77 -0.36 73.19 -2.59 5
500 DW 114.12 111.12 -2.63 108.56 -4.87 5
Av. 76.88 76.13 -0.70 74.14 -3.15 29

Total
BOX COMPRESSION STUDY
McKee Formulas
Because of the importance of ECT in the end-use performance of the box,
box compression predictions were made using each ECT method and compared to
actual box compression values. Predictions were made using the McKee box
compression formula: 1
P = a (ECT)b [(DxDy)0.5]1-b z2b-1
where Dx,Dy = flexural stiffness
Z = box perimeter
a,b = constants
Using single-wall samples, McKee et al. 1 derived experimentally the values of a
and b, producing the equation:

Project 2695-24 -41- -Report One
4
P = 2.028 (ECT) 0 .7 46 [(DxDy)0.5]0.25 Z0.4 9 2
This equation was used to predict the top-load box compression strength of some
of the initial 69 lots using the TAPPI, SCAN/Billerud, Weyerhaeuser, and
JTF/Billerud (original fixture) ECT test values. The data necessary for these
calculations are listed in the appendix in Table A32. Actual box compression
values and predictions are tabulated in Table A33 and summarized on the top of
Table 20. The percent difference between predicted and actual box compression
is given by:
[(Predicted/Actual)-1] * 100
Positive differences represent high predictions. Average percent differences
with regard to sign indicate whether the predictions are in general high or low,
while the average percent differences without regard to sign represent the
overall accuracy of the predictions. Results are given for single-wall data
with and without the double-wall data because the McKee equation was derived
using only single-wall data. Double-wall predictions are generally high. The
last column lists McKee's results for comparison. Note that the JTF/Billerud
method agrees very well with the TAPPI method with both sets of predictions
averaging 7-10% high. The SCAN/Billerud and Weyerhaeuser methods average about
4-7% low. This is expected because of the lower ECT values. Correlation coef-
ficients are all good, improving with the addition of the double-wall data.
McKee et al. 1 simplified their equation when they noticed the linear
relationship between (DxDy)0 .5 and (ECT)-H 2 , where H is the board caliper.
Their simplified formula, called the McKee Short Form, is:
P = 5.874 (ECT) H0 .5 08 z0.49 2

Box compression predictions using this equation are listed in Table A34 and sum-
marized at the bottom of Table 20. Again the TAPPI and JTF/Billerud methods are
in close agreement. Average percent differences without regard to sign are
almost the same as with the long form, but the average percent differences with
regard to sign are only a few percent below zero. The SCAN/Billerud and
Weyerhaeuser methods are both around 20% low, again due to the lower ECT values.
Correlation coefficients are high.
Table 20. Box compression prediction results using McKee equations.
IPC
SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
TAPPI Billeruda haeuser Billerudb McKee
Long Formula
Av. % Diff., SW 7.24 -7.30 -6.67 8.89 -0.51

with regard
to sign SW + DW 8.81 -5.60 -4.49 9.96 --
Av. % Diff., SW 8.96 9.20 8.36 9.77 7.08

without regard
to sign SW + DW 10.22 8.67 8.60 10.71 --
Correlation SW 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.95. 0.93

coefficient
SW + DW 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 --
Short Formula
Av. % Diff., SW -3.65 -20.77 -20.05 -1.74 0.61

with regard
to sign SW + DW -0.59 -17.82 -16.46 0.70 --
Av. % Diff., SW 8.32 20.77 20.05 7.13 7.7.7

without regard
to sign SW + DW 9.63 18.43 18.40 8.25 --
Correlation SW 0.93 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.91

coefficient
SW + DW 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 --

The most important result is the close agreement between TAPPI and
JTF/Billerud results, for both forms of the equation. Figures 25-26 show the
good agreement between actual and predicted box compression for the two methods
using the McKee short formula. Note how the double-wall predictions are not as
accurate.
2000
1500
X
X
X
I0 X
.0
X
1000- X
a
a
0
500- 0 SINGLE-WALL
x DOUBLE-WALL
0 wo 1000 15o 2000

PREDICTED, Ibs
Figure 25. Box compression, actual vs. predicted, using McKee short formula,
TAPPI ECT data.
0 0 0 0 0
2000-
1500-
A
Iwf
X
0)
.0 XS
41000- 00 X
1()B e a
500 1
0 SINGLE-WAU.
a x DOUBLE-WALL
0+
0 500 1000 1500 2000
PREDICTED Ilbs
Figure 26. Box compression, actual vs. predicted, using McKee short formula,
JTF/Billerud ECT data.
Modified Formulas
In an attempt to get better agreement between actual and predicted
box compression, the constants in the McKee long formula were rederived using
our TAPPI single-wall ECT data. Our "TAPPI Long Formula" is:
P = 2.180 (ECT)0 -7 2 7 [(DxDy)0- 5 ]0o 27 3

Z0. 4 54
The McKee short formula was also rederived using the relation between flexural
stiffness, caliper, and TAPPI ECT shown in Fig. 27. Our "TAPPI Short Formula"
is:
P = 7.178 (ECT) H0 . 546 Z0 .45 4
Using these equations box compression predictions were again made using all four
ECT methods and compared to the actual box compression values. The results are
tabulated in Tables A35-A36 and summarized in Table 21. Using these equations
the TAPPI predictions are now as accurate as McKee's predictions were, which is
expected. The TAPPI and JTF/Billerud predictions still correlate best with the
actual box compression values, see Fig. 28-29.
200-
13
Q 1
en 0
Z 15 0, a
10o
a
a
o o
Q X
E 50
0
0C.,
o F I --
0 .5 1 1.5 2
CALIPER SQUARED X TAPPI ECT
Figure 27. Relationship between composite flexural stiffness, caliper,

and ECT used to translate the McKee box compression equation
long form to short form.
Project 2695-24 -46- . Report One
Table 21. Box compression prediction results using "TAPPI Equations."
IPC - "TAPPI Equation"

SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
TAPPI Billeruda haeuser Billerudb McKee
Long Formula
Av. % Diff., SW 0.70 -12.63 -12.05 2.22 -0.51

with regard
to sign SW + DW 2.28 -10.94 -9.91 3.34 --
Av. % Diff., SW 7.02 13.24 12.41 6.85 7.08

without regard
to sign SW + DW 7.75 12.12 11.65 7.37 --
Correlation SW 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93

coefficient
SW + DW 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 --
Short Formula
Av. % Diff., SW -5.80 -22.54 -21.83 -3.93 0.61

with regard
to sign SW + DW -2.56 -19.45 -18.10 -1.30 --
Av. % Diff., SW 8.59 22.54 21.83 7.36 7.77

without regard
to sign SW + DW 9.76 19.92 19.89 8.32 --
Correlation SW 0.93 0.91 0.94 0.95 0.91

coefficient
SW + DW 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 --

Finally, the constants for the long and short forms of the McKee
equations were rederived using the SCAN/Billerud, Weyerhaeuser, and JTF/Billerud
ECT values, respectively:
Long Formula
P = 2.595 (ECT)0 * 7 22 [(DXDy)0O5].0 27 8 zO.44 4
' 0 7 29
P = 2.445 (ECT) [(DXDY)0.5] 0 .2 7 1 z0. 4 5 8
P = 2.049 (ECT) 0 '7 3 3
[(DXDY)0.5] 0 .2 6 7 z0. 4 66
Short Formula
P = 9.953 (ECT) H0 .5 5 6 Z0 44 4 '
P = 9.010 (ECT) H0 .5 4 2 Z 0 .4 58
P = 7.044 (ECT) H0O 5 34 Z0 4 66
Project 2695-24-4-RprOe -47 Report One
1300,
K
K
K
A K
K
100 03 K
lb o
a
a3UINOL-WA.LL
X DOUBLE-WALL
s0o
0 500 1000 1500 2000

PREDICTED, lbs
Figure 28. Box compression, actual vs. predicted, using "TAPPI Short
Formula," TAPPI ECT data.
2000-
1500w
K
K
~1000. 00a
a 03
03
500-
o UNOLE-WALL
x DOUBLE-WALL
0 5;0 1000 1500 200

PREDICTED. lbs
Figure 29. Box compression, actual vs. predicted, using "TAPPI Short
Formula," JTF/Billerud ECT data.
Project 2695-24 -48- -Report One
Predictions made with these formulas are listed in Tables A37-A38 and summarized
in Table 22. In all cases the average percent differences without regard to
sign remains relatively constant; however, the average difference with regard to
sign improves substantially. Predictions made with the "JTF/Billerud Short
Formula" are plotted in Fig. 30.
Table 22. Box compression prediction results using alternate equations.
IPC - Modified Equation:

SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
Billeruda haeuser Billerudb McKee
Long Formula
Av. % Diff., SW 0.47 0.02 0.28 -0.51

with regard
to sign SW + DW 2.44 2.44 1.34
Av. % Diff., SW 7.80 6.81 6.68 7.08

without regard
to sign SW + DW 8.69 8.23 6.94
Correlation SW 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93

coefficient
SW + DW 0.97 0.97 0.98
Short Formula
Av. % Diff., SW 1.28 .45 1.16 0.61

with regard
to sign SW + DW 5.40 5.21 3.84 --
Av. % Diff., SW 8.57 7.39 6.73 7.77

without regard
to sign SW + DW 11.61 11.12 8.59 --
Correlation SW 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.91

coefficient
SW + DW 0.96 0.96 0.97 --

2000-
1500-
a x
x
XS
X 1000- x
D o
500-
13 1 SINGLE-WALL
x DOUBLE-WALL
0+
0 500 1000 1500 2000
PREDICTED, Ibs
Figure 30. Box Compression, actual vs. predicted, using "JTF/Billerud Short
Formula", JTF/Billerud ECT data.
Because of the excellent agreement between the TAPPI and JTF/Billerud
ECT box compression predictions, it appears that the JTF/Billerud method is the
most accurate and efficient alternative to the TAPPI method.
M M
Project 2695-24 -50- .. Report .One -
CONCLUSIONS
In the exploratory study it was shown that sample height was not a
major factor in ECT results in the range of 1-2 inches. Gap width in the
Weyerhaeuser test fixture was also not critical in the range of (-2)-(+4) mils
around a "snug fit." Waxing was found to be important, indicating the need for
some type of sample support when unwaxed specimens are tested.
The JTF/Billerud method was found to most closely duplicate the TAPPI.
results. Springs with a spring constant of K.= 20.4 lb/inch in the Japanese test
fixture appear to supply the appropriate pressure for all series boards from
150-lb single-wall to 500-lb double-wall. Mounting these springs in the origi-
nal fixture'results in a quick, easy-to-use setup. Edge failure often occurs
with the Japanese test fixture, but this does not cause a decrease in measured
ECT. The Billerud cutter appears to be the best alternate cutting procedure.
This is partly due to the dual blade setup which cuts specimens quickly and
cleanly. Also, because the beveled edge of each blade faces outward, the cut
edges of the specimen are less damaged. This is not always the case with the
other cutters. The Billerud cutter must be properly maintained to ensure that
the blades are sharp and mounted squarely.
The box compression study again showed the JTF/Billerud method-to most
closely duplicate the TAPPI results.' Using the Mckeel and "TAPPI" equations,
both the TAPPI and JTF/Billerud method's average predictions were very similar.
The SCAN/Billerud and Weyerhaeuser method's average predictions were also simi-
lar, but not as accurate.

-asluo~ssaidmoo
u93vTd-pI21I snql Iuvoljiu2s aq ol lq~noqi jou sT s~Tq Inq 'GVH 9q3 JO BsOtl
Uvqn JDMT~o wuaDJd maj 9VAUspa IDR qq.9, 8o0
s 99 2u~sn A~o~~
pazidwoo 9J~m Q19H Pug M~iq aqj -jlo OH uavdaqxT 9q PuE '19
uo.2isuI Pug 'Ijuz 'MVI' u~led-p1 21 j aqa u9amiaq puno; svbm auOJ9J3TP luvfJ1u 2 Ts
ON 'P81e2TI89AuT aetm souT4pew Rupisal uoTssaidwoZo eOsdAl IVJ9ABS
auo liodaed-s tZ-969Z IDBPO.d
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Fourdrinier Kraft Board Group for its
support of this project. We are grateful to the Weyerhaeuser Company and
Sumitomo Corporation for their cooperation. We also wish to thank Institute
staff members Ann Mahoney, Gerald Hoffman, and Carl Smith for their work and
advice.
LITERATURE CITED
1. McKee, R. C.; Gander, J. W.; Wachuta, J. R., Pbd. Pkg. 48(8):149-59(Aug.,

1963).
Kurt E. Schrampfer /
Research Fellow
Will'm J. WhitsitF
Research Associate
Containers Group Leader
Gary A. Baum
Director
Project 2695-24 -54- Report One,·
Table Al. 150-Lb series single-wall ECT results, TAPPI method vs.
Weyerhaeuser method.
ECT, lb/inch
H&D Tester L&W Tester
Weyer- Weyer-
Lot, TAPPI, haeuser, Diff., TAPPI, haeuser, Diff.,
flute waxed no wax waxed no wax %
105 C 34.00 25.70 -24.41 31.90 26.80 -15.99

113 C 29.15 24.65 -15.44 28.85 22.60 -21.66
123 C 30.85 27.25 -11.67 29.00 25.60 -11.72
134 C 33.70 30.05 -10.83 33.10 27.60 -16.62
159 C 35.05 27.35 -21.97 33.30 27.50 -17.42
166 C 35.60 30.30 -14.89 36.50 30.45 -16.58
169 C 28.20 22.60 -19.86 26.60 24.50 -7.89
127 B 34.30 28.30 -17.49 32.60 27.10 -16.87
130 B 38.95 30.10 -22.72 35.05 26.95 -23.11
137 B 38.65 30.30 -21.60 37.15 29.30 -21.13
150 B 32.20 26.50 -17.70 28.80 27.60 -4.17
Average 33.70 27.55 -18.05 32.08 26.91 -15.74
Standard
deviation 3.47 2.57 -- 3.43 2.15
Table A2. 175-Lb series single-wall ECT results, TAPPI method vs.
ECT. lb/inch
Weyer- Weyer-
flute waxed no wax waxed no wax %
104 C 42.85 38.80 -9.45 42.20 34.90 -17.30

112 C 37.65 30.65 -18.59 37.20 29.05 -21.91
120 C 33.95 25.95 -23.56 32.90 25.90 -21.28
133 C 38.80 31.55 -18.69 37.95 29.60 -22.00
142 C 38.80 32.60 -15.98 38.85 31.50 -18.92
144 C 33.00 28.95 -12.27 30.80 26.35 -14.45
149 C 30.45 25.20 -17.24 26.05 24.65 -5.37
154 C 39.30 29.20 -25.70 35.65 28.70 -19.50
163 C 41.70 32.45 -22.18 39.65 33.05 -16.65
165 C 47.30 37.95 -19.77 46.30 37.00 -20.09
167 C 35.80 28.00 -21.79 35.40 28.70 -18.93
109 B 34.00 23.30 -31.47 33.35 24.45 -26.69
117 B 41.30 27.75 -32.81 37.45 28.30 -24.43
126 B 36.70 29.25 -20.30 34.25 27.95 -18.39
136 B 33.90 33.60 -0.88 33.40 30.90 -7.49
151 B 34.05 28.15 -17.33 32.45 26.70 -17.72
Average 37.47 30.21 -19.25 35.87 29.23 -18.19
Standard
deviation 4.37 4.22 4.75 3.54
ECT, lb/inch
Weyer- Weyer-
flute waxed no wax % waxed no wax ., % . *
103 C 43.05 36.55 -15.10 43.35 34.65 -20.07

111 C 35.05 31.50 -10.13 34.90 31.55 -9.60
115 C 44.70 36.90 -17.45 39.85 36.70 -7.90
119 C 48.20 39.35 -18.36 46.15 37.65 -18.42
122 C 37.40 30.65 -18.05 36.00 29.25 -18.75
138 C 35.40 31.85 -10.03 33.15 30.85 -6.94
158 C 39.00 29.95 -23.21 38.60 31.25 -19.04
108 B 48.65 36.40 -25.18 44.40 36.00 -18.92
116 B 44.80 31.45 -29.80 44.00 31.80 -27.73I
118 B 40.00 33.95 -15.13 40.00 34.00 -15.00
125 B 39.15 30.15 -22.99 38.40 35.10 -8.59
129 B 35.15 30.35 -13.66 32.10 29.55 -7.94
135 B 43.40 38.00 -12.44 43.80 35.70 -18.49
Average 41.07 33.62 -17.81 39.59 33.39 -15.18
Standard
deviation 4.75 3.37 4.59 2.81
ECT. lb/inch
Weyer- Weyer-
flute waxed no wax % waxed no wax
100 C 53.75 43.80 -18.51 53.40 45.20 -15.36

101 C 48.60 40.35 -16.98 50.15 41.85 -16.55
107 C 55.75 39.45 -29.24 50.75 44.15 -13.00
110 C 51.20 40.35 -21.19 51.10 38.70 -24.27
121 C 54.50 41.50 -23.85 48.05 39.80 -17.17
128 C 45.55 42.90 -5.82 47.05 41.80 -11.16
132 C 51.80 46.50 -10.23 52.50 46.95 -10.57
147 C 46.40 45.95 -0.97 43.45 41.35 -4.83
152 C 51.20 41.05 -19.82 48.70 39.10 -19.71
156 C 71.35 52.75 -26.07 68.70 55.60 -19.07
157 C 63.05 50.30 -20.22 59.55 49.25 -17.30
164 C 64.45 51.45 -20.17 64.65 48.70 -24.67
124 B 56.40 50.60 -10.28 57.30 45.60 -20.42
140 B 58.75 46.30 -21.19 58.25 44.50 -23.61
Average 55.20 45.23 -17.47 53.83 44.47 -16.98
Standard
deviation 7.25 4.58 7.06 4.64
Project 2695-24 -58- .Reo~ort· One
Table A5. 200-Lb series double-wall ECT results, TAPPI method vs.
ECT, lb/inch
Weyer- Weyer-
TAPPI, haeuser, Diff., TAPPI, . haeuser, Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax % waxed ; no wax 0
106 55.10 54.55 -1.00 53.90 51.60 -4.27

146 50.75 50.90 0.30 53.10 48.40 -8.85
Average 52.93 52.73 -0.35 53.50 50.00 -6.56
Standard
deviation 3.08 2.58 0.57 2.26
Project 2695-24 -59- -'Report One
ECT, lb/inch
Weyer- Weyer-
TAPPI, haeuser, Diff., TAPPI, haeuser, !Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax % waxed no wax %
102 65.95 59.90 :-9.17 56.55 56.75 0.35

114 62.90 61.60 -2.07 62.80 57.90 -7.80-
131 63.95 57.60 -9.93 63.90 57.70 -9.70
141 54.80 50.95 -7.03 58.10 49.55 -14.72
153 62.10 50.15 -19.24 63.90 49.70 -22.22
155 65.90 55.05 -16.46 65.25 55.20 -15.40
160 67.85 61.80 -8.92 69.15 63.35 -8.39
161 65.80 59.25 -9.95 66.20 60.30 -8.91
Average 63.66 57.04 -10.35 63.23 56.31 -10.85
Standard
deviation 4.03 4.56 4.14 4.79
Project 2695-24 -60- Report.One.
ECT, lb/inch
Weyer- Weyer-
TAPPI, haeuser, Diff., TAPPI, haeuser, Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax waxed no wax %
139 62.00 59.15 -4.60 61.05 58.05 -4.91

143 76.80 64.80 -15.63 73.95 63.50 -14.13
145 63.60 57.60 -9.43 63.75 54.95 -13.80
162 59.55 50.40 -15.37 59.35 54.45 -8.26
168 71.10 58.00 -18.42 70.40 54.10 -23.15,
Average 66.61 57.99 -12.69 65.70 57.01 -12.85
Standard
deviation 7.14 5.15 6.24 3.95
SCAN/Billerud method.
ECT. lb/inch
SCAN/ SCAN/
Lot, TAPPI, Billerud, Diff., TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,.
flute waxed no wax % waxed no wax %
105 C 34.00 26.40 -22.35 31.90 25.15 -21.16

113 C 29.15 25.70 -11.84 28.85 23.75 -17.68
123 C 30.85 24.70 -19.94 29.00 24.30 -16.21
134 C 33.70 30.10 -10.68 33.10 29.30 -11.48
159 C 35.05 25.65 -26.82 33.30 25.05 -24.77
166 C 35.60 29.10 -18.26 36.50 29.70 -18.63
169 C 28.20 18.50 -34.40 26.60 20.70 -22.18
127 B 34.30 29.90 -12.83 32.60 28.50 -12.58
130 B 38.95 30.85 -20.80 35.05 30.60 -12.70
137 B 38.65 30.05 -22.25 37.15 30.20 -18.71
150 B 32.20 28.00 -13.04 28.80 27.85 -3.30
Average 33.70 27.18 -19.38 32.08 26.83 -16.31
Standard
deviation 3.47 3.59 3.43 3.21
SL"7 L6E Lc"7 UOTIVJAap
pappuv1s
OL *S BZ'LT- 060tC Lt7 LE 92JA
IL'LT- 0L19Z 017 LZ s 17£ El i9i
a 9C1
ssL* 9ZI91- it9Z
990LC OL*LZ 9 LTI
0 Z17C
W9T- 00'17C 9 601
S V. LE6 *
1007 D L91
I L91
1 09* 01
I..9011z- D £91
*WU-
6991~- OL'6Z 00117E D i7S I
916CE
D 6171
166'ZT- 0VILC ) V17171
90,9r- 017 17C 09.9£ D Zvi1
. 0P19Z 690*Z- D0CC
I9L'61- OV019Z 0OZ
0019Z . 169Z 099£LE 0 UTI
Ssz 0 1701
.%:.. :XVM OU paxem *~
a
paIddVI
'*;j1:c 4paT~ I dcviI '49o'0,
/NVOS INVO S
49S89 alH
43~TV'/qT 'IL0H
lpOq4Im PnaaITlq/NVDS
'6V aTqpl
auo, 1.3ode-a -z9- 1~~~7Z
-969Z
~~u0~~-Z9- IDOPOJ aJ
~~.xod~~~~j
ECT. lb/inch
SCAN/ SCAN/
Lot, TAPPI, Billerud, Diff., TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
103 C 43.05 33.65 -21.84 43.35 30.95 -28.6,0

111 C 35.05 29.30 -16.41 34.90 29.05 -16.76
115 C 44.70 35.65 -20.25 39.85 35.45 -11.04
119 C 48.20 36.15 -25.00 46.15 34.35 -25.57
122 C 37.40 29.35 -21.52 36.00 27.55 -23.47
138 C 35.40 32.70 -7.63 33.15 31.65 -4.52
158 C 39.00 29.75 -23.72 38.60 29.05 -24.74
108 B 48.65 38.80 -20.25 44.40 36.05 -18.81
116 B 44.80 32.55 -27.34 44.00 31.65 -28.07
118 B 40.00 32.10 -19.75 40.00 30.60 -23.50
125 B 39.15 34.50 -11.88 38.40 35.70 -7.03
129 B 35.15 30.35 -13.66 32.10 29.10 -9.35
135 B 43.40 34.85 -19.70 43.80 34.30 -21.69
Average 41.07 33.05 -19.15 39.59 31.96 -18.70
Standard
deviation 4.75 2.92 4.59 2.91
Table All. 275-Lb series single-wall ECT results, TAPPI method vs.
ECT. lb/inch
SCAN/ ,SCAN/
Lot, TAPPI, Billerud, Diff., TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
100 C 53.75 41.20 -23.35 53.40 40.15 -24.81

101 C 48.60 40.15 -17.39 50.15 38.05 -24.13
107 C 55.75 42.05 -24.57 50.75 39.45 -22.27
110 C 51.20 38.05 -25.68 51.10 33.75 -33.95
121 C 54.50 38.40 -29.54 48.05 37.15 -22.68
128 C 45.55 44.05 -3.29 47.05 43.40 -7.76
132 C 51.80 45.65 -11.87 52.50 43.80 -16.57
147 C 46.40 46.30 -0.22 43.45 44.70 2.88
152 C 51.20 41.00 -19.92 48.70 39.90 -18.07
156 C- 71.35 54.45 -23.69 68.70 54.00 -21.40
157 c- 63.05 50.45 -19.98 59.55 46.20 -22.42
164 C 64.45 49.20 -23.66 64.65 48.10 -25.60
124 B 56.40 46.80 -17.02 57.30 44.90 -21.64
140 B 58.75 43.55 -25.87 58.25 41.70 -28.41
Average 55.20 44.38 -19.00 53.83 42.52 -20.49
Standard
deviation 7.25 4.76 7.06 5.10
'7L' LS'0 1tL0 90 * uoTI PAO1'
.Pjepuels
06'L- 0V'6~ E6'ZS 92e.Ay
E1£*9- 01.ES LO'l- 096O SLIOS 9il1
0 L67
06 * 0909~ 01P9 901
paxem xVM OU paxtim :10-1
I Clan
J zT t
pnaBTI1U ' Iddcil
/NVDS /NVOS
jals9Jl aq'j
qouT/qT '10a
,po04am pnl'TTTU/NVDS
*-7gx.
Po am iddvi '8:1nsa.i 10 TIL--aTqnop sea~s q'i-!OOZ ,ZIV aTqul
auo liodaU -9 9- '~Z-969Z l39rOJd
Project 2695-24 -66- .Report-One:
Table A13. 275-Lb series double-wall ECT results, TAPPI method vs.,
ECT. lb/inch
SCAN/ SCAN/
TAPPI, Billerud, Diff., TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax % waxed no wax %
102 65.95 55.65 -15.62 56.55 55.45 -1.95

114 62.90 56.20 -10.65 62.80 53.60 -14.65
131 63.95, 58.40 -8.68 63.90 56.75 -11.19
141 54.80 53.25 -2.83 58.10 .51.80 -10.84
153 62.10 49.70 -19.97 63.90 49.65 -22.30
155 65.90 54.45 -17.37 65.25 52.50 -19.54
160 67.85 55.05 -18.87 69.15 54.35 -21.40
161 65.80 55.70 -15.35 66.20 55.25 -16.54
Average 63.66 54.80 -13.67 63.23 53.67 -14.80
Standard
deviation 4.03 2.54 4.14 2.29
ECT. lb/inch
SCAN/ SCAN/
TAPPI, Billerud, Diff., TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax % waxed no wax
139 62.00 57.95 -6.53 61.05 56.90 -6.80

143 76.80 59.00 -23.18 73.95 58.05 -21.50
145 63.60 53.85 -15.33 63.75 50.60 -20.63
162 59.55 56.95 -4.37 59.35 53.40 -10.03
168 71.10 60.50 -14.91 70.40 58.40 -17.05
Average 66.61 57.65 -12.86 65.70 55.47 -15.20
Standard
deviation 7.14 2.50 6.24 3.36
Project 2695-24 -68- ~,. Report One
Table A15. 150-Lb series single-wall ECT results, TAPPI method'vs.

JTF/Billerud method.
ECT, lb/inch
L&W Tester
T-1:
J Lr/
Lot, TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
flute waxed no wax
105 C 31.90 30.27 -5.11

113 C 28.85 30.38 5.30
;123 C 29.00 32.96 13.66
134 C 33.10 31.61 -4.50 -
159 C 33.30 30.65 -7.96
166 C 36.50 36.34 -0.44
169 C 26.60 29.16 9.62
127 B 32.60 34.56 6.01
130 B 35.05 38.92 11.04
137 B 37.15 35.93 -3.28
150 B 28.80 34.11 18.44
Average 32.08 33.17 3.89
Standard
deviation 3.43 3.08
ECT, lb/inch
L&W Tester
JTF/
flute waxed no wax %
104 C 42.20 36.28 -14.03

112 C 37.20 34.37 -7.61
120 C 32.90 32.34 -1.70
133 C 37.95 36.53 -3.74
142 C 38.85 37.08 -4.56
144 C 30.80 31.91 3.60
149 C 26.05 32.38 24.30
154 C 35.65 36.15 1.40
163 C 39.65 38.84 -2.04
165 C 46.30 44.36 -4.19
167 C 35.40 36.43 2.91
109 B 33.35 35.40 6.15
117 B 37.45 37.89 1.17
126 B 34.25 35.74 4.35
136 B 33.40 42.70 27.84
151 B 32.45 32.08 -1.14
Average 35.87 36.28 2.05
Standard
deviation 4. 75 3. 5
Project 2695-24 -70- , .; RiRport- One'
ECT, lb/inch
L&W Tester
JTF/
Lot, TAPPI, Billerud', Diff.,
flute waxed no wax %'
103 C 43.35 37.52 -13.45

111 C 34.9'0 37.40 7.16
115 C 39.85 40.75 2.26
119 C 46.15 43.29 -6.20
122 C 36.00 37.81 5.03
138 C 33.15 38.01 14.66
158 C 38.60 38.36 -0.62
108 B 44.40 44.93: 1.19
116 B 44.00 40.98 -6.86
118 B 40.00 40.65 1.63
125 B 38.40 41.74 8.70
129 B 32.10 36.44 13.52
135 B 43.80 41.65 -4.91
Average 39.59 39.96 1.70
Standard
deviation 4. 59 2. 58
Project .2695-24 -71- Report One
ECT. lb/inch
L&W Tester
JTF/
100 C 53.40 52.01 -2.60

101 C 50.15 46.83 -6.62
107 C
110 C 51.10 48.06 -5.95
121 C 48.05 47.98 -0.15
128 C 47.05 47.37 0.68
132 C 52.50 53.08 1.10
147 C 43.45 55.64 28.06
152 C 48.70 46.93 -3.63
156 C 68.70 65.08 -5.27
157 C 59.55 56.96 -4.35
164 C 64.65 58.71 -9.19
124 B 57.30 58.52 2.13
140 B 58.25 59.82 2.70
Average 54.07 53.61 -0.24
Standard
deviation 7.29 5.99
ECT, lb/inch
L&W Tester
JTF/
106 53.90 55.68 3.30'

_ _
146
ECT, lb/inch
L&W Tester
JTF/
TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax %
102 56.55 60.70 7.34

114 62.80 66.77 6.32
131 63.90 62.96 -1.47
141 58.10 60.94 4.89
153 63.90 56.23 -12.00
155 65.25 60.02 -8.02
160 69.15 62.22 -10.02
161 66.20 62.06 -6.25
Average 63.23 61.49 -2.40
Standard
deviation 4.14 2.97
Project 2695-24 -74- Re'port:.One
ECT. lb/inch
L&W Tester
JTF/
TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
Lot waxed no wax %
139 61.05 66.62 9.12

143 73.95 62.90 -14.94
145 63.75 63.96 0.33
162 59.35 63.23 6.54
168 70.40 67.75 -3.76
Average 65.70 64.89 -0.54
Standard
deviation 6.24 2.17
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/
flute waxed unwaxed %
503 C 38.60 41.30 6.99

511 C 31.95 34.60 8.29
527 C 39.70 41.15 3.65
545 C 35.35 35.20 -0.42
555 C 34.75 34.95 0.58
578 C 38.40 36.50 -4.95
615 C 40.75 42.35 3.93
621 C 38.30 37.05 -3.26
631 C 38.90 38.05 -2.19
640 C 40.60 39.45 -2.83
680 C 36.90 37.65 2.03
526 B 42.05 41.50 -1.31
538 B 39.20 39.55 0.89
554 B 37.15 35.25 -5.11
569 B 35.95 34.10 -5.15
577 B 40.60 39.00 -3.94
596 B 34.25 36.00 5.11
603 B 36.15 36.90 2.07
614 B 34.30 36.80 7.29
624 B 36.80 35.65 -3.13
630 B 36.85 36.90 0.14
656 B 38.25 36.15 -5.49
660 B 36.15 36.00 -0.41
666 B 40.05 39.30 -1.87
Average 37.58 37.56 -0.07
Standard
deviation 2.48 2.38
Project 2695-24 -76- I. 'Report. One
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/
Lot, .TAPPI, Billerud, Diff.,
500 C 41-.75 40.00 -4.19

504 C 44.60 44.25 -0.78
518 C 35.65 35.90 0.70
529 C 44.45 44.25 -0.45
557 C 38.10 38.65 1.44
567 C 39.50 36.65 -7.22
571 C 41.00 40.60 -0.98
580 C 41.35 40.10 -3.02
586 C 38.60 38.90 0.78
592 C 37.60 38.00 1.06
.516 B 46.85 47.90 2.24
517 B 39.10 42.20 7.93
528 B 38.90 42.00 7.97
539 B 39.35 37.30 -5.21
556 B 40.80 40.75 -0.12
570 B 37.90 36.65 -3.30
579 B 42.60 39.50 -7.28
604 B 37.35 37.25 -0.27
632 B 29.60 31.55 6.59
667 B 41.95 40.80 -2.74
Average 39.85 39.66 -0.48
Standard
deviation 3.68 3.55
ECT, lb/inch
501 C 45.35 42.70 -5.84

505 C 42.00 39.05 -7.02
512 C 38.30 36.85 -3.79
520 C 42.10 40.75 -3.21
521 C 43.10 40.30 -6.50
531 C 47.90 45.75 -4.49
540 C 40.50 41.70 2.96
546 C 45.05 46.25 2.66
565 C 35.25 37.20 5.53
568 C 44.70 44.95 0.56
573 C 38.15 38.05 -0.26
582 C 42.55 38.20 -10.22
587 C 43.35 44.00 1.50
593 C 42.50 43.60 2.59
519 B 48.20 49.35 2.39
530 B 47.30 45.20 -4.44
564 B 39.95 40.35 1.00
566 B 39.35 38.60 -1.91
572 B 36.35 38.20 5.09
581 B 42.90 41.00 -4.43
595 B 41.70 42.40 1.68
605 B 49.55 49.95 0.81
616 B 45.40 45.80 0.88
626 B 45.75 49.05 7.21
Average 42.80 42.47 -0.78
Standard
deviation 3.73 3.94
90*9 UOTI PAOP
plepuels
V6'09 L8'L9 OBUi 8AV
LWI- 09£C9
00899 SLU69 V 609
9 699
91 *9- 08,19 q 6'79
909'V
09£9 9 819
OZ *S
01'69 la909
09 *s q L6S
1810 &WZ9
9 89S
*L9
08'69
80 *6-
06*01- 0Z199 SgIZ9 3 619
06'19 3 L09
1L'V 08'LS
06tES
3 6SS
96Z8*
1
SS*TL S6'9L 3 LVs
E1P6-
0804,9
SE209 0V799 o 90S
91 9S 3 Z0s
S'I6dV
qoul/qT 'TO3a
,g p~qqlm IddVI '9flns8a. loa pOT4-9T
u 1saliasT1B/AJA7 'SZV 8Tqei
auo -aztoda-d - ~~~u0 ~~~Z-S69Z
308rozza
~~~~~~od~~~~~
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/
flute waxed unwaxed
507 C 87.90 82.40 -6.26

550 C 75.20 74.65 -0.73
561 C 91.70 84.55 -7.80
589 C 73.80 72.05 -2.37
636 C 77.60 75.90 -2.19
662 C 81.05 80.05 -1.23
534 B 76.50 73.20 -4.31
549 B 76.10 73.60 -3.29
560 B 73.05 71.65 -1.92
610 B 75.40 74.65 -0.99
620 B 77.00 78.10 1.43
670 B 85.20 78.40 -7.98
Average 79.21 76.60 -3.29
Standard
deviation 5.50 . 3.80
Project 2695-24 -80- -Report ,One
JTF/Billerud method. -
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/
flute waxed unwaxed
508 77.15 78.90 2.27

514 63.85 61.40 -3.84
535 72.05 74.35 .3.19
542 78.20 71.25 -8.89
551 68.20 60.80 -10.85
562 69.30 63.85 -7.86
575 62.55 65.90 5.36
590 69.80 70.85 1.50
600 67.30 65.20 -3.12
628 68.55 59.25 -13.57
637 79.55 76.20 -4.21
645 79.50 71.50 -10.06
651 63.05 60.15 -4.60
665 73.50 72.10 -1.90
671 80.15 75.35 -5.99
678 81.65 76.40 -6.43
684 63.55 67.25 5.82
695 66.60 65.45 -1.73
Average 71.36 68.68 -3.76
Standard
deviation 6.55 6.23
Project 2695-24 -81- Report One.
ECT. lb/inch
JTF/
flute waxed unwaxed
509 69.15 73.80 6.72

524 79.05 77.30 -2.21
536 78.35 78.60 0.32
552 69.60 69.60 0.00
563 80.55 81.95 1.74
576 60.40 63.95 5.88
585 71.35 67.95 -4.77
591 81.95 83.20 1.53
601 83.40 80.25 -3.78
602 93.25 82.95 -11.05
611 63.85 63.10 -1.17
612 83.05 81.05 -2.41
629 68.65 60.65 -11.65
638 72.85 66.35 -8.92
653 69.60 68.60 -1.44
672 76.60 69.70 -9.01
543 66.25 66.40 0.23
652 66.95 61.20 -8.59
685 60.45 61.85 2.32
696 84.10 77.50 -7.85
Average 73.97 71.80 -2.94
Standard
deviation 8.83 7.93
Project 2695-24 -82- Report-·One
ECT. lb/inch
JTF/
510 106.60 99.65 -6.52

525 102.35 102.15 -0.20
537 119.25 110.75 -7.13
544 110.15 98.70 -10.39
553 124.45 113.15 -9.08
613 131.10 119.05 -9.19
639 112.40 106.85 -4.94
673 117.95 113.00 -4.20
Average 115.53 107.91 -6.59
Standard
deviation 9.52 7.30
Project 2695-24 -83- Report -One
Table A30. Effect of clamping pressure on ECT.
ECT, lb/inch
JTF/Billerud Method
K = 10.1 K = 16.6 K = 20.4
Series, lb/inch lb/inch lb/inch
flute Lot TAPPI Springs % Diff. Springs % Diff. Springs % Diff.
150 B 630 36.85 36.90 0.14 37.20 0.95 36.00 -2.31

150 C 555 34.75 34.95 0.58 34.70 -0.14 35.85 3.17
275 B 558 56.70 55.15 -2.73 58.15 2.56 59.75 5.38

275 B 583 61.95 62.45 0.81 66.75 7. 75 65.60 5.89
275 B 618 65.45 63.60 -2.83 64.45 -1.53 62.70 -4.20
275 C 584 55.20 57.80 4.71 56.45 2.26 56.65 2.63
275 C 588 63.85 61.95 -2.98 60.40 .-5.40 63.80 -0.08
275 C 607 62.85 61.90 -1.51 60.10 -4.38 59.70 -5.01
275 C 619 74.30 66.20 -10.90 67.70 -8.88 67.35 -9.35
350 B 549 76.10 73.60 -3.29 74.70 -1.84 75.05 -1.38

350 B 620 77.00 78.10 1.43 79.05 2.66 79.70 3.51
350 C 507 87.90 82.40 -6.26 82.85 -5.75 85.15 -3.13
350 C 561 91.70 84.55 -7.80 90.45 -1.36 92.80 1.20
350 C 636 77.60 75.90 -2.19 72.45 -6.64 76.4 5 -1.48
275 DW 508 77.15 78.90 2.27 78.25 1.43 79.30 2.79

275 DW 535 72.05 74.35 3.19 73.25 1.67 73.45 1.94
275 DW 590 69.80 70.85 1.50 69.60 -0.29 .70.70 1.29
275 DW 637 79.55 76.20 -4.21 72.55 -8.80 75.95. -4.53
275 DW 651 63.05 60.15 -4.60 60.45 -4.12 62.30 -1.19
350 DW 536 78.35 78.60 0.32 76.70 -2.11 79.45 1.40

350 DW 585 71.35 67.95 -4.77 64.30 -9.88 67.00 -6.10
350 DW 591 81.95 83.20 1.53 82.60 0.79 85.75 4.64
350 DW 672 76.60 69.70 -9.01 76.30 -0.39 74.45 -2.81
350 DW 652 66.95 61.20 -8.59 65.75 -1.79 67.20 0.37
500 DW 510 106.60 99.65 -6.52 103.45 -2.95 105.20 -1.31

500 DW 525 102.35 102.15 -.20 100.35 -1.95 101.05 -1.27
500 DW 537 119.25 110.75 -7.13 109.35 -8.30 110.85 -7.04
500 DW 553 124.45 113.15 -9.08 124.45 0.00 124.70 0.20
500 DW 673 117.95 113.00 -4.20 112.40 -4.71 113.80 -3.52
Average 76.88 74.32 -2.84 75.01 -2.11 76. 13 -0.70

Project 2695-24 -84- Report-.One
Table A31. K = 20.4 lb/inch Springs in original JTF.
E( :T, lb/inch
JTF/Billerud Method
K = 20.4 lb/inch Springs
Sseries, Modified Original
flute Lot TAPPI JTF % Diff. - JTF % Diff.
150 B 630 36.85 36.00 -2.31 35.86 -2.69

150 C 555 34.75 35.85 3.17 35.42 1.93
275 B 558 56.70 59.75 5.38 57.16 0.81

275 B 583 61.95 65.60 5.89 62.80 1.37
275 B 618 65.45 62.70 -4.20 61.30 -6.34
275 C 584 55.20 56.65 2.63 56.05 1.54
275 C 588 63.85 63.80 -0.08 62.05 -2.82
275 C 607 62.85 59.70 -5.01 59.37 -5.54
275 C 619 74.30 67.35 -9.35 65.40 -11.98
350 B 549 76.10 75.05 -1.38 73.50 -3.42

350 B 620 77.00 79.70 3.51 74.54 -3.19
350 C 507 87.90 85.15 -3.13 80.95 -7.91
350 C 561 91.70 92.80 1.20 84.40 -7.96
350 C 636 77.60 76.45 -1.48 72.35 -6.77
275 DW 508 77.15 79.30 2.79 79.30 2.79

275 DW 535 72.05 73.45 1.94 74.39 3.25
275 DW 590 69.80 70.70 1.29 69.04 -1.09
275 DW 637 79.55 75.95 -4.53 74.35 -6.54
275 DW 651 63.05 62.30 -1.19 63.15 0.16
350 DW 536 78.35 79.45 1.40 76.85 -1.91

350 DW 585 71.35 67.00 -6.10 66.15 -7.29
350 DW 591 81.95 85.75 4.64 83.85 2.32
350 DW 672 76.60 74.45 -2.81 73.51 -4.03
350 DW 652 66.95 67.20 0.37 65.60 -2.02
500 DW 510 106.60 105.20 -1.31 105.77 -0.78

500 DW 525 102.35 101.05 -1.27 97.95 -4.30
500 DW 537 119.25 110.85 -7.04 106.78 -10.46
500 DW 553 124.45 124.70 0.20 122.70 -1.41
500 DW 673 117.95 113.80 -3.52 109.60 -7.08
Average 76.88 76.13 -0.70 74.14 -3.15

Table A32. Data for box compression predictions.
Box Basis Flexural Stiffness

Series/ Perimeter, Weight, Caliper, lb/inch
Lot Flute inch lb/1000 sq ft mils .MD CD
105 150 C 73.50 108.3 153.6 133.4 48.3

113 150 C 29.50 109.3 158.2 161.6 56.2
123 150 C 62.25 105.3 157.3 131o3 58.0
134 150 C 35.50 107.7 146.9 184.4 51.7
159 150 C 60.25 95.3 156.8 84.4 54.6
166 150 C 83.75 109.2 156.8 94.8 38.1
169 150 C 39.25 117.0 157.4 135.6 32.4
127 150 B 42.75 105,3 113.4 69.7 31.0
130 150 B 46.25 120.7 119.6 99.1 43.9
137 150 B 37.75 106.5 118.4 67.7 28.8
150 150 B 42.00 104.0 113.0 56.3 28.6
112 175 C 55.50 115.5 161.8 145.2 58.1

120 175 C 51.00 119.7 155.8 104.4 47.9
133 175 C 68.50 119.7 158.8 142.3 48.5
142 175 C 43.50 118.6 157.4 180.6 73.9
144 175 C 51.00 114.8 150.8 120.3 35.9
149 175 C 45.50 116.5 151.9 144.0 46.3
154 175 C 75.50 121.0 160.2 113.6 48.6
163 175 C 70.25 125,5 154.3 143.2 48.9
165 175 C 90.50 131.3 158.1 146.1 44.5
167 175 C 59.50 116.8 160.3 92.4 38.7
109 175 B 34.25 111.8 113.8 66.8 25.7
117 175 B 52.50 113.7 117.1 72.8 30.7
126 175 B 41.50 114.4 112.7 67.3 38.3
136 175 B 46.00 126.8 123.9 93.6 41.8
151 175 B 62.00 111.7 119.8 75.1 31.2
111 200 C 71.75 126.0 144.1 118.1 66.8

115 200 C 50.75 124.5 158.8 156.0 59.2
119 200 C 53.00 130.2 153.1 136.4 52.7
122 200 C 58.00 123.3 163.4 127.5 44.3
158 200 C 59.75 124.3 160.6 144.5 56.9
108 200 B 47.25 121.8 110.4 72.0 42.6
116 200 B 47.75 124.0 117.5 92.9 33.8
118 200 B 59.75 121.7 118.2 87.4 34.6
125 200 B 51.50 125.0 117.2 77.3 40.9
135 200 B 37.00 124.6 125.0 104.3 33.3
100 275 C 35.63 179.2 175.2 256.7 84.3

101 275 C 51.50 181.3 170.1 264.2 116.2
110 275 C 44.25 175.8 162,5 306.4 99.9
121 275 C 44.25 177.8 170.3 248.2 84.9
128 275 C 47.75 182.8 168.2 204.7 99.0
132 275 C 48.75 184.2 166.6 246.3 113.3
£IZ91 Z, I P sl01z ima M&£
O£EZ 6'969 0 *IE MU OSIE
'7T6I 9£60Z 00 *9 McI SL 191
0"7~0Z s 29Z 6'661 McI SL
9 *99 E'1T
Vt899 MU SLZ
*£9Z
I191 9'66T MU SLZ IO I
0010L Ma SL
V*LET S61E z*csz Os IZI MU ONZ 901
61T9- £ * LI Zo~z1 Z'LL1 U L
00*9c 07Z I
T'S SIM1 0*9LT U L
~Z91
+I0L *LSI I9'9L1 3 L
9ILVu LU691 3 UZ L'7 1
UD ST M I; bs 0Qoi/qT qOu' :10-1
':IqgT.8m /SapaS
ssau3]TI4S Ivanxaa xoU
*suo~io~poid uo~ssaadmoo xoq .zo; viva (panu~luoo) ZCV 8TqvL
aub iaiodo-d -9
-99- 117Z-969Z 3390-lcl
Table A33. Box compression predictions using McKee equation: long formula.
Predicted Box Compression

SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
Series/ Actual, TAPPI, Diff., Billerud, Diff., haeuser, Diff., Billerud, Diff.
Lot Flute lb lb -% lb % lb % lb
105 150 C 587 677 15.41 567 -3.35 595 1.34 651 10.98
113 150 C 346 419 21.09 362 4.73 349 0.92 435 25.85
123 150 C 603 594 -1.51 521 -13.68 541 -10.26 653 8.36
134 150 C 492 512 3.99 467 -5.06 447 -9.20 494 0.47
159 150 C 500 608 21.58 492 -1.69 527 5.40 571 14.28
166 150 C 643 742 15.42 636 -1.04 648 0.82 740 15.04
169 150 C 444 414 -6.79 343 -22.70 389 -12.34 443 -0.18
127 150 B 508 459 -9.64 415 -18.26 400 -21.27 479 -5.62
130 150 B 504 550 9.22 497 -1.30 452 -10.22 595 18.10
137 150 B 471 470 -0.25 403 -14.53 394 -16.44 458 -2.71
150 150 B 395 400 1.18 390 -1.32 387 -1.98 453 14.79
112 175 C 602 685 13.74 524 -12.93 569 -5.42 645 7.22
120 175 C 550 561 1.96 476 -13.48 469 -14.70 554 0.66
133 175 C 656 751 14.54 681 3.78 624 -4.84 730 11.33
142 175 C 601 665 10.65 589 -2.04 569 -5.38 642 6.86
144 175 C 466 524 12.45 472 1.36 466 0.09 538 15.46
149 175 C 489 462 -5.52 472 -3.50 443 -9.34 543 11.12
154 175 C 701 731 4.32 638 -8.96 622 -11.26 739 5.41
163 175 C 746 788 5.56 660 -11.51 687 -7.84 775 3.95
165 175 C 946 992 4.86 864 -8.71 839 -11.29 961 1.57
167 175 C 547 612 11.94 541 -1.06 524 -4.28 626 14.36
109 175 B 421 407 -3.42 355 -15.57 323 -23.39 425 0.97
117 175 B 565 566 0.11 440 -22.11 459 -18.77 571 0.99
126 175 B 465 480 3.22 442 -4.98 412 -11.30 495 6.55
136 175 B 553 523 -5.51 536 -3.10 493 -10.84 628 13.49
151 175 B 448 555 23.87 480 7.10 480 7.10 550 22.82
111 200 C 695 735 5.69 641 -7.83 681 -1.98 773 11.28
115 200 C 680 698 2.60 639 -5.97 656 -3.51 709 4.33
119 200 C 788 770 -2.24 618 -21.57 662 -16.02 734 -6.80
122 200 C 642 649 1.07 531 -17.21 556 -13.43 673 4.84
158 200 C 714 727 1.89 588 -17.58 621 -12.97 724 1.42
108 200 B 541 635 17.34 543 0.45 543 0.34 640 18.38
116 200 B 578 636 9.98 497 -13.98 499 -13.68 603 4.30
118 200 B 583 658 12.86 539 -7.59 583 -0.03 666 14.22
125 200 B 502 597 18.84 565 12.55 558 11.14 635 26.47
135 200 B 571 566 -0.87 472 -17.40 486 -14.90 545 -4.52
100 275 C 800 813 1.57 657 -17.90 718 -10.31 797 -0.41
101 275 C 910 972 6.78 791 -13.09 849 -6.70 923 1.46
110 275 C 751 914 21.73 671 -10.67 743 -1.06 873 16.29
121 275 C 830 833 0.33 687 -17.19 724 -12.82 832 0.22
128 275 C 705 847 20.12 797 13.10 775 9.97 851 20.73
132 275 C 892 967 8.40 845 -5.30 890 -0.27 975 9.29
147 275 C 973 950 -2.40 970 -0.31 915 -5.94 142 17.37
Project 2695-24 -88- -Report Owe
Table A33 (Continued). Box compression predictions using McKee equation:

long formula.
Predicted Box Compression

SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
Series/ Actual, TAPPI, Diff., Billerud, Diff., haeuser, Diff., Billerud, Diff.,
Lot Flute lb lb % lb % lb X lb %
152 275 C 705 754 6.94 650 -7.83 640 -9.21 733 4.03
124 275 B 800 964 20.55 804 0.50 813 1.67 980 22.46
140 275 B 643 767 19.22 597 -7.09 627 -2.47 782 21.61
106 200 IW 1219 1353 11.00 1254 2.91 1310 7.45 386 13.72
102 275 DW 1427 1477 3.48 1455 1.98 1481 3.75 557 9.10
114 275 DW 1101 1220 10.81 1084 -1.54 1148 4.30 277 16.00
141 275 DW 1003 1091 8.77 '1001 -0.16 969 -3.41 131 12.71
153 275 DW 1463 1687 15.28 1397 -4.50 1398 -4.42 533 4.80
161 275 DW 1111 1476 32.85 1290 16.09 1377 23.91 407 26.60
143 350 DW 1278 1683 31.67 1405 9.92 1502 17.53 491 16.70
145 350 DW 1072 1380 28.74 1162 8.36 1235 15.24 384 29.06
Av. % Diff., SW 7.24 -7.30 -6.67 8.89

With Sign SW + DW 8.81 -5.61 -4.49 9.96
Av. % Diff., SW 8.96 9.20 8.36 9.77

Without Sign SW + DW 10.22 8.67 8.60 10.71
0 (N (N
".M- U% 0% (N -4 0 0% U-" C- 4 C- 00 (N t-.'. 4 W C- C- 4r
4-4 0 0 C- c. 4 C. " - 0%, "Wa 0' W C- 0 U-
WN N .0 C- - 0% it N it' 1' '0D 0% W'
.5.4
C. '04C- U-I 4 lr '00 it'
-
a) 0 4* C- (N4 0% '0 C4 040
D! 1 i .0 '%D C.' 0% (~ (N-'0
4 'L1 C.44.. C6 4 C. 06 '04
I ,I- - I- I II I I IlI- Ill
0 I I
-. I.
Q. 0%0 W 0~0 O 0 C
P.W m %V I C- -. 41"0uC0 WM n .0 " .'M Cy
a) a '0C-C-0(C't0Nm
LA M '1'1 'C-LA-4414
C'c40
n-T- 4 L n% .1'T4
C-0%NC"C.
4- 0%'0C., 'I 1'4
".4 .,I4
0
4
* (10%n '-.0(LA(f C4 (Ni 0%4 '0C-
fN 0 -I VI, .4 C C.' 44,
N .
ID 4O0% t0 C-
14 0 Go
0
C
0 W0% %a m-0 0.0T CY%4(' 1 N(
co 1' '0( (N %O 0n0 P- 1 0en t'
a,
'4) N ( -n (N(N-, -O I4 c'n (N ( (N ON (N (N - (N
-"0- 0% 4D
ON 4n0%Ws% C.'
W 4-4
40 C- VI' 0% 0TrC' C1 it'
C.'
(n4 C4 C-4 I.C.'4
.C
(00% 'Ct040 ( 0% - C- - )(n0 It~ I- '01' C.'4 it'Lr - it'
(004.0- '0 it' 0 %cn %C'
0% 0 till~C c ugen 0t hL U- V. c'J (N C~l ( It C. 0% 04 - '01 0
'0'01"0 M0-C
0 go-4 1'(N0(N( 04-' 4 0''C-C'4
4.C4 C.) -'
-'0 Cli-
-- C')4 C (N
~4- 'U
".4
41' C.' 0% 045
WU C- LA00 0' 0',C- (N4 1'.O 40. 0%
0% 0 N 0
a) V.
as
'0 % 004.
it'
~
,
%D '0 it' 1'
C!
44
10~
' In4r
C
(N a,
*4 -'00 0C-C.)Oi
0) (NC.'
C. . I N en
-'4
U,
4 '00%040.
W 5.. e P-
4 P-i% C- U (0 0( 0%- 0 -o -L(
0 Cy,- (N(NtC.'s%'( VIA C' r-
-- -- CC-0
-- 0 C4'001'r 0% 4 C (N ( C-0
gillU- 11111m 3 e 44L . 0 44C 1 '( '.'.'C 4 %OgCiul %I'sui g nL '0D. 0o C- % 0%
a)
.-
4C C-0 c- '0C .0 '(
0
0
(IN'040 C- 00( It'0 0% - (N Co C- - 0% 1coC.'
-#q
C'! 0
(0 C 10
C -- 0% r (N10~0" C- (N W.
C-'%ID (N
O - LA 0% 0% Ln 4 '00 ( 0N '01 0
4~~404C-'0.00%co400
'4J U- 00-
U,% 4O C' 0(0 (N 0% 0%f1' VI It O- C. 0 0 0N (N
C) ' C C)CD D 0(D0'0- ,0, U'.
%AD%C 4- C.0 - CY%'0C) i '*4n44 D. ON r- co C- co C,
W tn
LrII L nUI I .
W-
AiS 0%-01C c'%((N('r .
il-i
-3 4-C El44C
.U
-C.-
4.) it' U'. i' U. Le" U ,, U '. U'. UIN' iL it' it' 1 U ,%
U '. 0000000000o iL^ UI% U'. It' U, 1' W,
a) 0000000000 C4 C-s C- C- C- C- C-4
*0 -l
.0
5.W CU
C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- - (N (N (( N (N (N (N (N (N (N
-0 i ' ( ( 0 ' 0 0 1" 0D- 0-- (0(C, It
Project 2695-24 -90- -- Report One
Table A34 (Continued). Box compression predictions using McKee equation:

short formula.
Predict ed Box Compression

SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
Series/ Actual, TAPPI, Diff., Billerud, Diff., haeuser, Diff., Billerud, Diff.,
Lot Flute lb lb % lb % lb % lb Z
152 275 C 705 663 -5.92 543 -22.92 533 -24.47 639 -9.34
124 275 B 800 882 10.24 691 -13.62 702 -12.27 901 12.59
140 275 B 643 665 3.41 476 -25.97 508 -21.00 683 6.20
106 200 DW 1219 1382 13.34 1248 2.40 1323 8.50 1427 17.08
102 275 DW 1427 1413 -0.95 1386 -2.88 1418 -0.60 1517 6.32
114 275 DW 1101 1219 10.70 1040 -5.51 1124 2.07 1296 17.70
141 275 DW 1003 1050 4.67 936 -6.68 895 -10.74 1101 9.78
153 ' 275 DW 1463 1737 18.73 1350 -7.75 1351 -7.65 1529 4.48
161 275 ID 1111 1490 34.10 1243 11.92 1357 22.15 1397 25.72
143 350 DW 1278 1621 26.83 1272 -0.44 1392 8.91 1379 7.88
145 350 DW 1072 1377 28.45 1093 1.96 1187 10.72 1382 28.88
Av. % Diff., SW -3.65 -20.77 -20.05 -1.74

With Sign SW + DW -0.59 -17.82 -16.46 0.70
Av. % Diff., SW 8.32 20.77 20.05 7.13

Without Sign SW +DW 9.63 18.43 18.40 8.25
0
-00 ID IA%I MA I IA%- " 0% kn VIA
44
144 H 0 4I " , F- IA 0 4 I U IA I co 4rLn F- en - I LA 0% 04 U) 040 04 r-
0 -.4. - 4 04 IA 0 4
IA LA F-:0%
- I '0 LA IA - 6U F- 0LA IA - U 'A 04 I;AI'0'4'00 '0IA
IA
en IDI- -
4.'
o ( .- w. fl- 0D 0%,- I 4~ I 0 0 -4 - 0 I M c
Q4 - 004 PI 0-'% co 04 co co 0en '0 co F- Go co F- co 0% 0
0 '0I'0 '0 IA IA' F- co IA -4 IA% 41 I I
~)-4
0 4 F- IA F- 0 4
0- IA IA 04 U)U)) U) F F- I '0 M- 4
0
'-4
IA'000 '0- F- F- IA 4 0%040 U% L040
A44 0Cy-" F- 04'C.f% 04 IA F- - .40%04 C) M 0%0 -
04 ODU CF
44 HR IA &0 F- I 0 4 4 U) -
A 0 I " I-
- F- IA - -'- 04 - A 0 F
- 0 0C L
10 %0 IA I A 'A IA
-4i .04
0 It - It IA IA F- 4 U)0 -C4 '0'%00- IA .Ir'0 co 00
IA - A044F-'IAI -F
.in0 mrs- ' 0 F0 F- 04 '0 F- U
-'-4 C4I %C -4C
0. 0)- '
00 U) 0'4 0 F
IA 4 IA,IA 44I IA F 4 IA 4~ IA 44I
>1.0
r.' 0 U)0-0 Cy%
4'i
.A.
I AIAI A 4 4 IA I IA 4 I IA
a,0 040 IA'0 ; 444 I C% 0% 0-4f- M4 U ) U)ID
co 0M
0
06 44"
-44
F- IA I IA IA A LIA IAcID F- 0 - ~ co0 4 IA
VIA L0
0
I A I
U
L^4 0
ID0
i 4t IA I
I
0
4
in. 04-4-M ' 00
Is 0n04040V% wN0%F
1-4
U IAN0% 404 IA%co 04 IA IA IA F-- 0' en F- 0 -% IA
0%, 4 MIA'044 0% -ON% 0 IA-0
44r '0 IA I 44 IA%.'0F- IA-IA44 I 4 C4 C'
.- I"
.4 A %
-.
4 0%0 4 4 0 0In vI
A 0 0 UF-
44
0' 44H4 4 enF4F
g4IA
co IA IAn - A 4 F- - I IA - - MI '0 4 04
-. It co 4 I -
Ln
F- 0 4 4 C 'J' 04 Ir 0 0 U 0 0 - F
'0 4t '0 IA%IA 0IA 0444co F- 0 -
0 1 1~0 - - IV
I
II M IA
M 0' IA 0%'0 F- F-
0 0A
04- 4D IA04 F-
0
0% IAM F- 0 F.- .1
4~ U) - IA IAr- co 0-404 M co'-.
U C0% 4 IA -
-4t
04 . 0 IA1 0%'
0-4 % IAs .-4 F-
CY 404 0%r IA 0% IA F- IA0 '0 OD 0-4IA 0
U,%IA'ID 4 4'0 - 0% IA IA IA 4 4 I I tn C4 I
I-..
,
'04*IA 4T I '0 IA 4 IA 4 IA -C IA U) ID LA%04% 4 0 'L
0n
04 0
n$4 OD 0 0%
co 0o-.0
-4
AJ0 m 4 Ain IA )-, F- 0% U)%F- U) 0i LA
.Fq-40, %OI 0 %0I - In V%4 MIA 0 4L O 0 %D 00%.'0'0F-I;
00 w
L"
0-A w Ai
-4 v 0000000000
w 4
V% 44
00000000000
IA%IA IA IA IA IA iA IA IA IA IA I A IA IA IA I A' IA I ~IA IA I IA-IA IA IA"IA- 0000000000 F- F- F- F- F- F- F-
04104 04 014040140
- - - - - …- - --- -
U
0) 0) F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F-
r-I
0 .0 - IA 0% 04 U) M 0 U IA IA, 0-0 co)04F
$4 (d 4i L M M4 CYAA40'D00%r- 0r- 0 - 4 4 0 4 I 0 - .. 4 0 4
4
PI. = 04
O.0- v,% 0 '0 " M M I
a)
0
'44
.ot-.o o -oC.) ou- 04 c-acM %
0
.0.
I--. - co M (.4
1 0
0-. 0 - en0(4(4
.4-
.,I It " OI co C 0 41% U",-. 41%n
-4 r- 0 v)4- CIO.* 0 a, 4* 0
(N%0 n 0% (
co a, I I-
I I -- - - I --
I I
0
4-I
'44
-'-4
40*0 "% (.-00--. 0*44%-
0 %D0-1*0 -I
" .- 0*(4%(4" 4-.
0
0~
--
4 .14 --
4 0%4*t0%DU'N0% .40
*c n -* 4C e
%D ~0 0, C-) 4
C- fWN
c P-0C) %D0% C.4
0. C4 ; 4 600 .4 t4 C-Ic vE4%-
III 1- - - - -
0. a I .I -I I ~II
a
K '44 M %-q(- (.4 -
% O% 0 -4 0%
0 '44 %D0r- LA -
~
r1.-u~r- r
M4%00%C4%M
44 1*s0
.
4 M410
M4%-
UN
4. A.
Ut Oarl C.4 M' C)0 .- 0C4M 0 4- 0 c C*4tn%
0 - 0% It e 0*0Cy, .C4 01.-
C4 -4(4' M 4 (.4 *0 4 4 %
1.-4 1 % 4 -. 0 C4 tz
1 (.4 C4 C.4
0 %D0* (4N 0%0,c4M(4 C-4 *01.-
(.10* 1-4 %D as %D *r.0%% 00
r- co (.
4 (440U¶44i C) u's en
-4
~~~~
~0 ~ ~ g
C- Z 04 n o- C.40 ~ + ~+
-~4 -~44.*;-
4-i CO CO
C'. bO
I 0 =
eq , *- W
1 -1L4 -- a 1% - -
r- r, f0 %M- CN
C4 C4
(4 C-4
C4 M en
4 4 0.4 %4.4
V C .4 ( 4 . 4 UC I4 C
4-3 -~ C,,
- 7 .. 7 .4
-4i~
4J
4-4 '0ULn UIN w WA N 0D 0 CO 0 IA 04T (4 0 -' C 0'
0 4, 0r- - C--- CONWC C- 0', CO CO4 N IA 0'
'0(4
-'00 I - C (4,
'0 4 . S CO N 0 0 ' Q6 0 - C6 LA 4 LA' -Z 0
0
Li
.4 Ln CO N I N C - ~
0 ' 4' (4, CON 0
o4 VI InL-
I L- - I - i%-t
04
C0 C04 4 ,' (4 C- 4 N CO 0' 0' 0 It
O L
iii - I i l l - ti1 ? 9 l ~ ~
0.
-4 IA.
- C '0 0 (4,0 '=I A 0 0 (4 C- - 0 I C-; N6 C4' C-6 I
V44 '0 0 IA (4 C- CO0 0' CO 0 N I A I' 0' '
4 C4 C- 0' N 0I
.,4. '
(4,C 0 -4 (44 f 4 ' (44
IA IA'0IA 4 '00C '0(4 A 4 IA 4
4i
0 0 (r - CO C-) '0 0 C O ' 44 ' 44, CY, IA N C CO 0'
4'. r-.C C-'.C 0
04 co 00' 0 0' o 0 0' 0 0r%1 0C 0 '0-4
eq e C-C 0 -0 0 - 0 -)0 '0I 40 I A CO 4 0 0 -.
O D'
IA (4 _;
I IA 4' 4A4 U, 41 ~4
44. -e C?4
0 C' CO '0 N C N N"C4' 0' ' 0 0 CY
- 0 ' CO C 0' C r- ' 0 ' I N
0
' (
4, - 4 CO C
.E-4 I I, IA IA C
I I0 IO I IA 4'
C
bO C6
C- 40 VI, C Cn I'
7- fn~I -n C4 .' 0 Cr- 0' (4, (4 'y,0- C , 0 - 0 mO C
0) -4 N Ne, i l 4 Nn n e NCyNN , - N e- i- N 041 Ln4V'0 '0 C SCIA
II
.44
"4 C- 0 (IN
C4I0 4.in IA CO0 %C ID 00'
ON
i C-4 % 4'- -.
4 -. 4 co '0 It -0'
44IA 4 4 (
44 IA I -
C 4n N m4 (
4 4 (
C- 4C) C(4 0' ' 0 C O -
(0 tC - 0 IA 4w
4- C O C-(, U1 ' 0' (4 N? 4 4 N~
(4,
II 4 N4 (
4 4 IA (4 (4, c o,
4, 4
CO0'
(4, - N Lr NC 00'c 0 C's %4DI4
C4 C- CO 0') N0 - --
IA IA I 4 IA 4 4 4
-O' N
4 4
00 I-
COI 0' 1 0N 4 0 0 WNC> a, cn '0 N CO N
II N- CY'~C-4 0 0 4% Cy% 0A M It
N I - N1 N - I N(4 N - 0 ' (4 %COr- "(4
IA co t-
N n
e0 (4, I
4'- 4'0co
A 44, (0
4-
0. C-C. I C -D C- 0' 4I IA W %
.4-
04 I v-4
C0O'I 0' CO 0' 0' O CY, 4O0 (4 - N
0' -
(4 n 4 N 07 (4-
'-4 N0 (4 O(,
D4 i N ON N
*0
N40 0' C- 0 CO IA I CO 0 0 ' ' I en 'c 44N C- IA C CID cn eqC
4-4 0 % co (4 ' 0 0 ' 4 0 co C-
I *n I
rlI I I I I I IA ID IA 4 4 4 4 4 FN 44u~
Lf
N C U0) IA I co. IA N It- C O ' i
N1 C -'
0 4r UL N LIN WN. WN 0'i
PI A ' 0 rI A r I ' 0' C- I A
04
U'0 N'0 N' W
0(,N L 4'.N
n NI
'00' Ln (4,L 0 0' N 4D N N - '0 '
0" 0 N 0'4444C CO CO4C- 0'C, '0(00'C C4 0 C CO'0 0C
4, L-,0 C 4, 4, r- r : r rI'.
(44f0 0 N 4 I 0 0 ' 4 4 ,0 N~ - .'0:
PO
Ln ' 0 0 ' 4o- C- N '
0. N-0 0 (4, 0'T O 0 C- 0' C 44, (4 ' I 'a ' eq 4 o 'C-
' co.4 (4, N 0n 00 ( cO C IA CO%
'
0I A'
en 4 '(4 0 I'. 0 ' ICA 4 I A 4 44! 0 NN IAr IA0 C- -~ N
C-4 C- C- -' C- - -' 4- C- C- 4' . C- -
0
A-i
4i
~~~~ ~~4.i
~~~~~44
I
(9-I?
.0'
cn
00
-
r,-
cnC" 4o
UN -
04 O
C
(
- -
C4 cn
0Cye
'OC
- '-
4C" I
o 0~~~~~~~i C%4 14 V%000% C.1C4 -006 ( P00
04 ** - - CJ~ ~~~
C4 ~~~~~~~~~~
I I
-
1- 0.0 M VN 4C 1tcC4 C% 4 Cy%cn
04 '4.4 0%0 4 'O4 o 0. 00
04 we
4I.4~~~4 ..
1-4 -.C'4 I IC~~~~~4 - ~C'I-4 C4N
bO
II.'
-
ci 0J.- co0 C) % 09 a, C.14 0000
c
* '0,0Dtto
%CAl C-i 4t- 00 c9-C' M
0 .C
.9-4
.9-4 0 %W C- c
U C-~~~~~~~404 -%I0 .'91 u4 CiP0
.. 0'0 '%O P I 0 -4 -4 .0 -0
to - 4.4 C 0 nC I C) -4 C
o0~~0.0 00 4 4'0
1
-4~I C-4 C4 1.
.9-4 4
Li 0
o ~~~~ 00~n-. 00c UN 40- 0%4 0f
VI I' W I-'Le .-C r -4C4
4i- 00% (' 4C0 -4 t-49-
04 94
$ 4 --. ~ CA
C9
~~0 ~~-A0
W
J -4
049W-i
f-04
i --
UN ((l% t kn
C- 400.O- ('.4-
(
t
0-- 00
-A 4O
0~0
LA -a e 4 n c
C14 ~ ~ '.0 O
04J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
U)
0
0
0 -- 4Co4
.44 VI% w C-J C-
C4 IA'0- C-- I4 %-a- o0
00C- 0% %VI V
1-4 h LA -4- Co (' r-MC-c. --
- -0
C- '0 C C~I Co40 C-
-ID m V 006 004
e,;- LA-
Ow
a
-44
IA CoC--
0 IA4' C'-a V 06 CIz C-I - 0 C-I - Vn 4- V '0 t 44 IA 4z LA -6 C- 0 0
- Co0 O C'4 C-- C'l 00I
W *0
0
IJ~ 1-4-4.0 C, -'' Cy, 0% 0 C- - -0 CiI C- 0
C-. co 00 C-- C-. 0 0
-) -4 -4 II I I -
I
00O0 C-1 C-. - 44 m-
0
-44 400('O 0% cnC'.ICJ 4 C-4 - 0 iA IA%C-I 0%'0
0n It C-- -''0T00mIA000
0 144 C--'0 0Cy, '0I IA'0 ON CI
I-40C-i LA LA Ua C4 0 - 0
Co-CI?- C-3 'D C-1 C- - C-( 44(n
N-4
0 f- C-- 0, C-i C-, tn%C-. 4 V" -
4~4
NI ~a n en C. 0% Co(7 0% 00 00 00 ('co00 C 04 VIt '0 C4 Co - '4 C-i C- w 4 C-- 0 Ln
-
10 -0 '0 0 - IA C-i Co U 4: Co 4 "- 0 00 -000 cnID'0o
4' -- Co in 4*4 C-. 0% co I- Co0% 0%Cy
V '0'. LA 4 &'0 4 4 '0A' '0 tn IA IA Ln
2 S-,
.4-4
bC -'4)
4-4 .0 t
-I "-4
co C-i'040 C-I - 0I0'
Ln
A ('I -00 r-r A - CInC 0 C4 '0 VI -40 C- 0% %VI 4 0%
C. )-4 -
co IA
OCy- 00 C-4
'00 %a
4 C-- 4(0 C- '00n C C-I4 IA0 -. 0%IV LA 4O IA M-' C- 44
0
I- I I I I t-
-4i
0n 0% IA C C-40'0
-dq C'. C--'en CIA 4 -n C- C-- I- co C-- C- co 0%0
0)
1.4 0'40 C- Co -000 IA' 0%00'-% n 0% '04 00 CVI'0 o' IA eq
co-. 00 l 000 00' 0% 0%I- U-, C- 4r C-- 00co-CoIo C. - a,00 0'0 4- VI V
00 - 0
00'0-a% C-- I- .4
C-- in c".-
0 00 -' 0 IA C-4 VI
`-4 : .0 0
tn a -'0
O 0 --'0'0 AI *- '0 4 C-- 0-' IA VI 0 %C--
Co
0%O1 004 r Co 0 A C co 0% co00 - 0o (I
14)
.U
00000000000
C.) U U U U U 00000000
to w
0
ia 0000000000
x
0
-
anwr.:
Co
IA A A A A A I I I I I C-- C- C-- PI C- C-- C-- C- C-- C-- C- .-C-- C--C C-- "- "- C-- "- " C4
Ln w % k W U,% '00%C-0 ui ui -0L C-I C- C-I -I C- C-- C-I
as - eq ('4 C)- C-
CIC- C- C-i M'
C-- 0 cVI "- 4 0% 4* VI IA C- 0% C--'0 '0 - D0-0- C4 C-4MC-
_C-- VI 444Z IA 'n0 \0'ID-4 C-i V IA - -A -%C- - '0- IA IA- -I 4
00- -- I C-
4-ii I--
0)
.0
0 1-4
w-
Project 2695-24 -96- Report..One
Table A37 (Continued). Box compression predictions using modified long formulas.
#
Modified Eauation
.....
S;CAN/ Weyer- JTF/
Series/ Actual, Bil lerud, Diff., haeuser, Diff. , Billerud, *Diff.,
Lot Flute lb lb % lb % lb %
152 275 C 705 719 2.02 697 -1.20 684 -3.04

124 '275 B 800 861 7.65 864 8.04 896 11.98
140 275 B 643 660 2.70 681 5.88 726 : 12.98
106 200 DW 1219 1345 10.34 1392 14.18 1271 4.22
102 275 DW 1427 1588 11.25 1594 11.68 1441 0.98

114 275 DW 1101 1203 9.27 1250 13.53 1191 8.19
141 275 DW 1003 1108 10.45 1054 5.12 1053 5.02
153 275 DW 1463 1502 2.69 1490 1.87 1407 -3.80
161 275 DW 1111 1405 26.50 1479 33.13 1301 17.08
143 350 DW 1278 1544 20.79 1623 27.02 1386 8.46

145 350 DW 1072 1274 18.82 1333 24.37 1282 19.57
Av. % Diff., SW 0.47 0.02 0.28

With Sign SW + DW 2.44 2.44 1.34
Av. % Diff., SW 7.80 6.81 6.68

Without Sign SW + DW 8.69 8.23 6.94
a)
0
4.)
0 0 uiA 0 f-. 0% N P-
U)'' P.-' )
.4tO U) U) 0' W N0'I LA %0 -4 '0r 'A sO
U-4
I- I I- I
0.
VI I, V"
I M 1 - III4 I W '
I.W
co t- ('14CN4N3
0' coIU P.O U)
w~ 0' N 0% ' 0%- M' IA 4 0 C)4 w)0 '00 D '0 U) I'-
OD
I-i 4 -'r~*C4
ooc 0 - 'A IA '0'J
V" 4 P.P- 0"04%IA 4* IA
U)~ ~ ~ c N' t , v
0
'0N NN m' m' 4 m' 0' 4 -- N '0' Ln 0, -Nmr r1 A r)
44-
'4i -A'00 '0P.0'co .'co
04 '0C3) )U
C
0 - 0'4 4r
I r- 0U T)4-
A. -o 0 r-'r00 m0 I
r-. 1 4.4w
u 4.'
4C'01 I coO c'n N 0' Ln. co 4
O''0 U)
U) >~ .0 LN'D' LA 0% '04Dm 4 ' 0C'4 'A (n OD P.-N- N- 04-
3 '0I'0I IA 40 4
P 0' '0C') 4w ;A '
0) 11
"'4 -"04u C)
VIA N U) No 0 I 00tA0
'A.1 Pn P LA CT0 'A 'A %0'0 'A
4.11 4 I I0 I0- I0
'4-
~4.1H '0A' I oh P.4444
P., U)
D 444 (N4-- I P.-0
a) II- - NI-
'-4
V'A s4O 'A 0' P- A-NC' -0 u- p0P 4 o CyN
-- I --
f- I. IDr r- , I0V VI Iv.N ,
04 -4 P.NC)
IAC' -' ' 0" P.t U)
LA -4-00'n 4 )0
LAU LA 'A P.' ' . 0' ONP 44 i'-
w
0) .0 'A co 00 4I U)r - No 4
-4. 50r
P 00 'A%'A IA '0% -Cq N 050 4
0
-'.4
4- '04 N% 0 C' 4 U) 4-
a) 4') '0%4 'A '0 4 'A,IA 44 '0IAn '0'044 P.- 0' IA 4 'A- 4* ULn
'A0 ) Uan co N -Q
4) C'-4 4'0
z0
0. 0' U U) 4- 4 P- U) 0 C-
CD0CD0- 0 P- IA Ca 'A IA'
0
u-
U) U) U
UC.) C.)C.)C.)U) U)q
x0
00000000000
%n '%%A VIA IA% I% VI% IA% V%'in IA IA IA 'A IA IA rIA IA' IA. IA IA' IA IA IA- I" IA
U) S
CPS W
0L
0000000coID00
ar) 44i l 40''10
1 m P.0 P0 N014acnC4 0'C40t'n PM ,'0 o'D
I 01 - …
'0
4.1 -.
4
.0
coI
Project 2695-24 -98- - Report .One
Table A38 (Continued). Box compression predictions using modified short formulas.
Modified Equation
SCAN/ Weyer- JTF/
, Series/ Actual, Billerud, Diff., haeuser, Diff., Billerud, Diff.,
Lot Flute lb lb % lb % lb %
152 275 C 705 708 0.46 678 -3.79 665 -5.69

124 275 B 800 874 9.23 875 9.37 922 15.22
140 275 B 643 617 -4.09 644 0.20 708 10.12
106 200 DW 1219 1602 31.43 1666 36.70 1472 20.79
102 275 DW 1427 1802 26.31 1804 26.41 1576 10.47

114 275 DW 1101 1377 25.09 1447 31.45 1360 23.49
141 275 DW 1003 1232 22.84 1148 14.50 1152 14.82
153 275 DW 1463 1722 18.41 1702 16.35 1577 7.79
161 275 DW 1111 1617 45.56 1726 55.35 1451 30.63
143 350 DW 1278. 1659 29.81 1773 38.75 1434 12.25

145 350 DW 1072 1427 33.12 1514 41.20 1439 34.20
Av. % Diff., SW 1.28 0.45 1.16

With Sign SW + DW 5.40 5.21 3.84
Av. % Diff., SW 8.57 7.39 6.73

Without Sign SW + DW 11.61 11.12 8.59
A
0602~1w~

Ect Test

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ect Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L86 1'LZ Kjenjqaj

UnflISNI dJ3dVd NV3I8i3W'V

THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY

March 27, 1987

Project 2695-24, Report One

COMBINED BOARD EDGE CRUSH (ECT) TECHNOLOGY

An alternative ECT test procedure using unwaxed 2 x 2 in. specimens was

1043 East South River Street

Members of the Fourdinier Kraft Board Group March 27, 1987

Additional information on other test methods is also summarized in this

Yours very truly,

THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY

ECT TEST EQUIPMENT 5

Test Support Fixtures 8

Compression Testing Machines 10

ECT Specimen Size and Tester Factors 12

Compression Testing Machines 12

Weyerhaeuser Test Fixture Wedge Spacing 13

Sample Cutting Procedures 14

Comparison of SCAN and Weyerhaeuser Test Procedures 15

Japanese Test Fixture 21

Modified Japanese Test Fixture 28

Japanese Test Fixture - Spring Comparison 33

Box Compression Study 40

COMBINED BOARD EDGE CRUSH (ECT) TECHNOLOGY

measurement technology by developing a safer, simpler, and more efficient method

tested. Box compression comparisons were made for approximately 50 lots.

The Japanese ECT test fixture, marketed by Sumitomo Corporation, used

and exhibited lower variability. Later work with a spring-operated version of

the fixture showed ECT results to be sensitive to clamping pressure. Double-

appropriate springs has been recommended to the Sumitomo Corporation.

Slight adjustments of the McKee equation's constants corrected this. Double-

only single-wall data.

The two other ECT procedures investigated included a SCAN-method/

Billerud cutter combination and a Weyerhaeuser holder/Weyerhaeuser cutter com-

methods, as were the corresponding box compression predictions. Sample height

range (-2)-(+4) mils around the recommended "snug fit".

Several types of rigid-platen compression testing machines were com-

pared to the flexible-platen H&D compression testing machine, and no significant

difference in ECT results was detected.

One of the important properties of corrugated board is its edgewise

board type, 1.25-inch, 1.50-inch, or 2.00-inch heights (cross-machine direction).

during compression testing. After preconditioning and conditioning, the speci-

men is tested by placing it between the platens of a flexible-platen compression

testing machine with the flutes vertical.

included the hand-operated Weyerhaeuser and Japanese knife-cutters, and the

automatic, dual-blade Billerud knife-cutter. To avoid waxing, the methods used

a Japanese test fixture marketed by the Sumitomo Corporation. Using these

sample cutting and supporting techniques we compared ECT values to those

obtained using the TAPPI method.

A secondary objective was to compare ECT results obtained on new rigid-

platen compression testing machines to those obtained on conventional flexible-

*Scandinavian Pulp, Paper, and Board Testing Committee; Edgewise Crush

flexible-platen compression testing machine. In recent years new compression

TAPPI method T823.)

ECT TEST EQUIPMENT. ,

Several different sample cutting procedures have been introduced in

the past few years in an effort to eliminate saw-cutting. In this study we

investigated three such procedures: the Weyerhaeuser knife-cutter, the dual-

blocks. Finally, we tested two rigid-platen compression testing machines and an

Instron to compare with a flexible-platen testing machine. All of these are

described in greater detail below.

The Weyerhaeuser knife-cutter is pictured in Fig. 1. It has a