journal article·2020-05-01

Creasing severity and reverse-side cracking

JOEL C. PANEK, SWAN D. SMITH, DOUGLAS W. COFFIN

TAPPI Journal· Volume 19· Issue 4
Publisher page

Abstract

Crease cracking can be detrimental to the functionality and appearance of paperboard-based pack-aging. The effect of creasing severity on the degree of reverse-side crease cracking (bead-side of the crease) of paperboard was investigated. Samples were creased with a range of rule and channel geometries, and the cracking degree was quantified as the percent of cracked length relative to the total length of the crease. The cracking degree was typically below 5% at low crease penetration depths, but was exponentially higher beyond a critical penetration depth. A rule and channel combination with a wider clearance shifted the critical depth to larger values. The creasing severity parameter, termed the creasing draw, converged the cracking degree data from different rule and channel combinations to a single curve. The creasing draw was derived from the same analytical expres-sions as the transverse shear strain and quantifies the length of paper that is drawn into the channel during creasing. The critical draw is defined as the draw at which cracking becomes greater than 5%, which corresponds with the point at which cracking becomes exponential. The critical draw is a material/system parameter that defines the level below which cracking is minimal.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Material Properties and Processing

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (7)

Show source-provided references
1. Coffin, D.W. and Nygards, M., in Advances in Pulp and Paper Research, Trans. of the XVIth Fund. Res. Symp. Oxford 2017 (W.J. Batchelor and D. Söderberg, Eds.), FRC, Manchester, 2018, pp.69-136.
2. Coffin, D.W. and Panek, J.C., TAPPI J. 17(4): 231(2019). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ17.04.231.10.32964/TJ17.04.231 ↗
3. Halladay, J.F. and Ulm, R.W.K., Pap. Trade J. 108(5): 36(1939).
4. Emslie, A.G. and Brenneman, R.S., Tappi 50(6): 289(1967).10.1051/mattech/196750100289 ↗
5. Cavlin, S., Dunder, I., and Edholm, B., Packag. Technol. Sci. 10: 191(1997). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1522(199707)10:4<191::AID-PTS402>3.0.CO;2-J.10.1002/(sici)1099-1522(199707)10:4<191::aid-pts402>3.0.co;2-j ↗
6. Cavlin, S.I., Packag. Technol. Sci. 1: 77(1988). https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2770010206.10.1002/pts.2770010206 ↗
7. Nagasawa, S., Endo, R., Fukuzawa, Y., et al., J. Mater. Process. Technol. 201: 401(2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.253.10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.253 ↗