Archive for the ‘Corrugating’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Any Suggestions for Removing Starch

May 17, 2022

Carl asks:

As part of my internship, I’ve been tasked with investigating ways to remove starch build-up from our corrugator sections. We tend to get heavy build around the glue machines (of course), but also on many other components of the corrugator. Our crews can spend hours scraping and chiseling to remove build up. We try to stay on top of it, but since we are a high output operation it can quickly get ahead of us. In your experience have you come across any safe alternatives to remove buildup and how fast they may be?

You’re not alone. It seems like no matter how careful a corrugator operation is, it ends up with starch someplace we don’t want it. With the high speeds corrugators are running today, spray, sling and other types of transfer can quickly create unwanted buildup and even stalactites of starch.

There are chemical solutions available that will dissolve starch. Some are based on biodegradable enzymes and claim to be safe to crews and the environment. It’s said that these solutions/systems quickly dissolve dried starch, but how fast to go from buildup to clean machine will, of course, depend on how severe the buildup is. However, I believe it is safe to say that it will be quicker, probably much quicker and safer for the machine and crew than hammer and chisels.

What are other readers doing to keep their corrugators clean? Let us know.

— Ralph

Tags:, ,
Posted in Corrugating, Plant Management | 1 Comment »

Roll Hardness Testing

June 12, 2020

Chris asks,

I was recently appointment QA manager at my company and have dove head first into the realm of Schmidt Hammer(roll hardness) testing.  A very significant issue we have is with warp.  I have noticed that most of the time when I see a difference of greater than 10 on the Schmidt Hammer test we suffer from unacceptable warp issues.   Since I’ve started hardness testing inbound rolls we have adopted a pass fail system where any roll that tests to greater than 10 is rejected.  To add to this problem our supplier has adhered to a system that says anything under 15 is acceptable by industry standards.

What is your take on this?  Do you feel that it is unreasonable to ask the mill to commit to less than a 10 difference?

Also, the mill is questioning my testing methods.  TAPPI T834 suggests to sample a roll every 6 inches across the roll (the mill uses this sample frequency).  I have always been taught that as for a scientific process that the larger sample size yields more accurate result.  With this being said, I chose to test my rolls at a frequency of every 3 inches which would increase my sample size.

Do you feel that my testing method is in some way negatively affecting the results?  As in, is my sample size causing the rolls to “fail” on a more frequent basis?

 

I love the three inch method. However, you would not be able to correlate to any of the 140 +\- containerboard machine out there. I would agree you are more likely to find a wet streak with your protocol, but mill specs usually call for moisture deviation to be six inches or less.

Do you have linerboard specification sheets from other companies?  You may want to investigate roll hardness from other manufactures. If your supplier is so entrenched in their thinking you might consider saving their rolls and having one of their Corrugator supervisors show you how to run the board without warp. It’s a bold move!

 

— Ralph

Posted in Corrugating, Paper, Testing and Specifications | Comments Off on Roll Hardness Testing

Pin Adhesion Test (PAT)

August 30, 2019

Sam asks,

Do you have any formal reference of what the ideal pin adhesion test result should be.   For agro boxes (vegetables) we currently use values of 55 to 60  (pound/inch) and in industrial 40 and higher.

We have a particular customer that has experienced some delamination failures. The PAT test value is 27 (pound/inch) which we believe to be too low. However, we are lacking established information to back up our opinion.

I could not agree with you more.  I prefer a minimum, not average, of 45 for industrial application.  My technical associates at TAPPI like this 45 value while I would rather have 55 on all corrugated bonds.  It is most important to know where the failure is occurring: linerboard, medium, or in the starch itself.  Under ideal conditions we want 100% liner failure. As you can see in these photos a very low PAT value can have disastrous results. There is very little liner pull and very little glue with a poor bond.

A good reference for the PAT is the most recent version of TAPPI document TM 821 (TM 821-0M 17 at this writing), Pin adhesion of corrugated board by selective separation.

— Ralph

Pin Adhesion Test sample Pin Adhesion Test sample Pin Adhesion Test sample

Posted in Containerboard, Corrugating, Testing and Specifications | Comments Off on Pin Adhesion Test (PAT)

Tuck Top vs Tuck with Locking Tab, or Friction Tuck

March 1, 2019

Rich asks,

I have a customer who orders a lock bottom box with a tuck top from us. It ends up at distribution in Walmart and Walmart is having issues with the top flap coming open. It does not get taped closed. They are asking if we have packaging engineers that can provide documented test results or studies on performance changing it to a tuck top with a locking tab, or friction lock tuck top tab, or extending the tuck on the top tuck. Have you seen anything like that or are you aware of any hard documentation that says how much it changes the function of the top tuck? Thanks for your help with this.

I would start by checking with your sheet supplier and/or their containerboard provider to see if they have any information regarding the information you are looking for. Often integrated companies do these types of studies. Some will be willing to share and others are not as open to sharing their results. I have an associate in Canada that may want to weigh in on this issue. I’ll touch base with him and then update this post with any input he may have. I also searched through my George Maltenforts’ books, but found no discussions or reported research in this area.

However I do believe that a friction fit is the best way to go short of some type of press applied coating.

— Ralph

Posted in Containerboard, Corrugating, Finishing/Converting, Testing and Specifications | Comments Off on Tuck Top vs Tuck with Locking Tab, or Friction Tuck

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »