journal article·2024-11-27

Evaluation of folding effects on coating damage

JOEL PANEK, JUSTIN BENNETT, WILLIAM MALLORY, SWAN SMITH

TAPPI Journal· Volume 23· Issue 11
Publisher page

Abstract

Barrier coatings on paperboard need to maintain integrity during converting and end-use for effective barrier performance. Folding is one of the most common deformations during converting; however, factors that affect damage during folding are not well defined. This is partly because methods to fold specimens and characterize damage are not standardized and the results are generally not transferable. In this work, we describe a method to fold paper specimens precisely and reproducibly. The keys to folding include using a defined geometry and controlled deformation. Multiple methods can be used to quantify damage; in this case, we use differences in permeability as a measure of how the coating becomes more open. Damage is sensitive to the degree of compression after the initial folding. Using a shim for support provides a defined amount of compression and minimizes the sensitivity to the applied pressure.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Material Properties and Processing · Metal Forming Simulation Techniques · Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements

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

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. Lev, R., Tanninen, P., Lyytikäinen, J., et al., BioResources 18(4): 8707(2023). https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.18.4.Lev.10.15376/biores.18.4.lev ↗
2. Panek, J.C. and Hart, P.W., TAPPI J. 21(11): 589(2022). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ21.11.589.10.32964/TJ21.11.589 ↗
3. Coffin, D.W. and Nygards, M., “Creasing and folding,” in Advances in Pulp and Paper Research, Oxford 2017, Trans. of the XVIth Fund. Res. Symp. Oxford (W. Batchelor and D. Söderberg, Eds.), 2017, pp. 69-136, FRC, Manchester, 2018. https://doi.org/10.15376/frc.2017.1.69.10.15376/frc.2017.1.69 ↗
4. Pál, M., Dedijer, S., László, K., et al., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 36(4): 626(2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/npprj-2021-0041.10.1515/npprj-2021-0041 ↗
5. Hornatowska, J. and Barbier, C., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 27(4): 714(2012). https://doi.org/10.3183/npprj-2012-27-04-p714-720.10.3183/npprj-2012-27-04-p714-720 ↗
6. Zhu, Y., Bousfield, D., and Gramlich, W.M., Prog. Org. Coat. 132: 201(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2019.03.031.10.1016/j.porgcoat.2019.03.031 ↗
7. Salminen, P., Carlsson, R., Sandas, S., et al., “Combined modeling and experimental studies to optimize the balance between fold crack resistance and stiffness for multilayered paper coatings –Part 2: Pilot coater experimental studies,” TAPPI PaperCon, TAPPI Press, Atlanta, 2008.10.1177/0021998309104227 ↗
8. Nagasawa, S., Endo, R., Fukuzawa, Y., et al., J. Mater. Process. Technol. 201(1-3): 401(2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.253.10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.253 ↗
9. Kim, C.-K., Lim, W.-S., and Lee, Y.K., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 16(5):842(2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2010.05.001.10.1016/j.jiec.2010.05.001 ↗
10. Youn, H.-J., Sim, K., Oh, K.-D., et al., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 27(2): 445(2012). https://doi.org/10.3183/npprj-2012-27-02-p445-450.10.3183/npprj-2012-27-02-p445-450 ↗
11. Wang, Q. and Ding, N., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 35(3): 419(2020). https://doi.org/10.1515/npprj-2019-0051.10.1515/npprj-2019-0051 ↗
12. Barbier, C., Larsson, P.-L., and Östlund, S., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 17(1): 34(2002). https://doi.org/10.3183/npprj-2002-17-01-p034-038.10.3183/npprj-2002-17-01-p034-038 ↗
13. Mirzaei, B., Johnson, A.T., Panek, J., et al., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 38(2): 261(2023). https://doi.org/10.1515/npprj-2022-0088.10.1515/npprj-2022-0088 ↗
14. Najafi, S., Bousfield, D., and Tajvidi, M., TAPPI J. 18(2): 93(2019). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ18.2.93.10.32964/TJ18.2.93 ↗
15. Jopson, R.N. and Towers, K., “Improving fold quality in coated papers and boards – the relationship between basestock and coat-ing,” TAPPI Coat. Conf., TAPPI Press, Atlanta, 1995.
16. Zhu, Y., Bousfield, D., and Gramlich, W., J. Coat. Technol. Res. 18(4): 1117(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-021-00465-1.10.1007/s11998-021-00465-1 ↗
17. Hagerty, G.A., Walkinshaw, J.W., and Foley, P.M., TAPPI J. 76(2): 97(1993).
18. Javed, A., Rättö, P., Järnström, L., et al., Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 33(2): 336(2018). https://doi.org/10.1515/npprj-2018-3039.10.1515/npprj-2018-3039 ↗
19. Panek, J.C., Smith, S., and Coffin, D.W., TAPPI J. 19(4): 219(2020). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ19.4.219.10.32964/TJ19.4.219 ↗
20. Nairn, J.A. and Kim, S.-R., Eng. Fract. Mech. 42(1): 195(1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(92)90291-L.10.1016/0013-7944(92)90291-L ↗
21. Yanaka, M., Henry, B.M., Roberts, A.P., et al., 397(1-2): 176(2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(01)01473-0.10.1016/S0040-6090(01)01473-0 ↗
22. Tavares Da Costa, M.V. and Gamstedt, E.K., Surf. Coat. Technol. 426: 127746(2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127746.10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127746 ↗
23. Mirzaei, B., Harksen, T., Smith, S., et al., TAPPI J. 20(2): 81(2021). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ20.2.81.10.32964/TJ20.2.81 ↗