AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
YI-PYGN FANG
for the degree of
in FOREST PRODUCTS presented on
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Xi?VI /5 /PIO
Title: KRAFT GREEN LIQUOR PULPING OF DOUGLAS-FIR
FOR CORRUGATING MEDIUM
Abstract approved:
Redacted for Privacy
(1/4Talter Tj. Bublit6
Douglas-fir wood chips from Oregon were pulped with kraft
green liquor to produce semi-chemical pulps with properties suitable
for the manufacture of corrugating medium. The effects of five cook-
ing variables were studied, chemical charge, chip size, bark content
of chips, pulping temperature, and liquor sulfidity. The combinations
of levels of these five independent variables were chosen according
to an incomplete block design, which allowed a maximum amount of
statistical information to be obtained from only 30 individual cooks.
Pulping properties studied were pulp yield, total solids of the waste
liquor, pH of the waste liquor, the hypo number test of the pulp, and
such pulp strength properties as Concora crush strength, tensile,
burst, tear, and stiffness. Chemical charge is the most important
single variable affecting pulp yield, tensile strength, and Concora
strength, whereas the salfidity does not affect the pulp yield but does
affect the tensile and Concora strengths. Cooking temperature, bark
content, and chip size have less significant effects on pulp yields
and pulp strength properties. Green liquor pulps have distinctly
darker colors than neutral sulfite pulps from the same wood species,
and the former pulp forms denser sheets than the latter.
Generally speaking, green liquor semi-chemical Douglas-fir
pulps are equivalent to or slightly lower in quality than other commer-
cial semi-chemical pulps in Concora strength, but equal or slightly
superior to them in tensile and bursting strengths.
The deficiency
in Concora strength can be overcome with increased refining, and
the slightly higher pulp yield and elimination of the causticizing step
make the green liquor semi-chemical process more attractive for
corrugating medium.
.444
Kraft Green Liquor Pulping of Douglas-fir
for Corrugating Medium
by
Yi-Pygn Fang
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
June 1977
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
<
ear
Associate Professor frf Forest Products
in charge of major
Redacted for Privacy
Head
obiepartment of Forest Products
i
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of Graduate Schlool
Date thesis is presented je"/4096
Typed by Opal Grossnicklaus for Yi-Pygn Fang
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writer wishes to express his sincere and deep appreciation
to his major professor, Dr. Walter J. Bublitz, for his encouragement
and competent guidance and untiring help throughout the study. With-
out his help and support, this thesis would never have been possible.
Special thanks are extended to Dr. Kenneth Rowe of the Oregon
State University Statistics Department for his assistance with statis-
tical analysis and to Dr. Murray Laver for his kind assistance and
encouragement.
The writer extends his appreciation to Jerry L. Hull for his
help and suggestions regarding experimental procedure.
The writer is deeply grateful to his parents for their understanding and encouragement of his study in the United States.
The deepest gratitude is expressed to Irene for her help and
encouragement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
Corrugating Me dium
Kraft Process
Neutral Sulfite Semi -Chemical (NSSC) Process
Cross Recovery
Green Liquor Semi-Chemical (GLSC) Process
Experimental Design
5
6
9
11
18
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
22
Material Flow Sheet
Sample Selection
Sample Preparation
22
23
23
23
25
25
26
28
29
30
Chips
Chemical Treatment
Preparation of Cooking Liquor
Cooking Conditions
Hypo Number Test
Chip Disintegration
Pulp Refining
Handsheet Formation
Handsheet Testing
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sample Preparation
Pulping Results
Total Solids in Waste Liquor
pH Value of Waste Liquor
Pulp Yield
Hypo Number Test
Chip Disintegration and Pulp Refining
Clearance Determination
Power Consumption and Initial Freeness
PFI Refiner
Pulp Quality
Introduction
Concora Strength
Tensile Strength
31
31
34
34
34
35
35
38
38
43
43
44
45
46
46
47
50
Bursting Strength
Tearing Strength
Stiffness (MOE)
Freeness, Bulk, and PFI Revolutions
Stiffness and Coricora Strength
Comparison of Different Semi-Chemical Pulps
GLSC and NSSC Softwood
GLSC and NSSC Hardwood
53
57
57
60
65
66
66
66
SUMMARY
69
CONCLUSIONS
73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
76
APPENDIX
79
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
Simplified diagram of the kraft recovery process.
7
Simplified block diagram of the cross-recovery
process.
10
Diagram showing cyclic nature of the kraft recovery
process and GLSC process.
13
Flow sheet of materials (experimental procedure)
22
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
Cooking conditions.
19
Experimental plan.
21
Summary of physical tests.
33
Size and classification of Douglas-fir chips.
34
Multiple regression of cooking variables to pulping
results.
36
Predicted maximum value of pulping results.
37
Hypo number test.
40
Hypo number vs. beating revolution (PFI).
42
Hypo number vs. beating revolution (PFI).
42
9-1. Hypo number vs. beating revolution (PFI).
42
Disintegration data. (Bauer Refiner).
43
Power consumption.
44
Refining data. (PFI mill)
45
Multiple regression of cooking variables to
Concora strength.
48
Predicted maximum value of pulp properties.
(Concora strength, Bursting strength, and Tensile
strength)
51
.
Multiple regression of cooking variables to Breaking
17.
length.
54
Multiple regression of cooking variables to Burst
factor.
55
Multiple regression of cooking variables to Tear factor.
58
Page
Table
17-1. Predicted maximum value of pulp properties.
(Tear factor, Stiffnes (MOE), Bulk, Freeness,
and PFI Revolution)
59
Multiple regression of cooking variables to stiffness
(MOE).
Multiple regression of cooking variables to Freeness,
61
ml CSF.
62
Multiple regression of cooking variables to bulk.
63
Multiple regression of cooking variables to PFI
revs.
64
Comparison of QLSC and NSSC softwood corrugating
medium- handsheet data.
67
Comparison of GLSC and NSSC hardwood corrugating
medium - handsheet data.
68
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix
Table
Page
Simple linear regression of pulp qualities.
79
Multiple regression equations relating cooking
variables to pulping results.
80
Multiple regression equations relating cooking
variables to pulp properties (200 ml CSF level).
81
Multiple regression equations relating cooking
variables to pulp properties (1,000 PFI revolutions
level).
83
Multiple regression equations relating cooking
variables to pulp properties (1. 8 cc/gm Bulk level).
85
Multiple regression equations relating cooking
variables to pulp properties (0 PFI revolutions
7,
level).
87
Original data.
89
KRAFT GREEN LIQUOR PULPING OF DOUGLAS-FIR
FOR CORRUGATING MEDIUM
INTRODUCTION
Corrugating medium, the inner, fluted portion of a corrugated
box, is a major commodity in the pulp and paper industry. Corru-
gated boxes are an important item in all industries, and have shown
steady growth over the past decade with a projected continuation of
this growth rate.
Traditionally, most corrugating medium has been manufactured
by the neutral sulfite semi-chemical process (NSSC process), but
witli the advent of more stringent pollution laws, dumping of the un-
treated NSSC waste liquor into rivers or the ocean is prohibited.
Chemical recovery processes have been developed for NSSC liquors,
but they are tediuos, complex, and involve significant capital investment.
Very few such processes have been installed commercially.
In recent years, a hybrid recovery process called "crossrecovery" has been developed for recovery of NSSC waste liquors
in a kraft mill recovery system. The NSSC mill "sells" its waste
liquor to the kraft mill, and the NSSC chemicals become the make-up
chemical for the kraft recovery system, thus avoiding dumping of
the untreated NSSC waste liquor and simultaneously furnishing make-
up chemical for the kraft mill. The two mills must be located on the
same site, or very close to each other, and in addition to various
operating problems in the kraft recovery mill, there is a further
restriction of the output of the NSSC mill based on the kraft mill
output. While it has proved feasible in many cases, it is thus not
a universal answer to the problems of corrugating medium manufacture.
Kraft green liquor, which is the intermediate stage of conversion of kraft white liquor from kraft black liquor, has been the subject
of investigation in recent years for the manufacture of corrugating
medium. It is a milder pulping chemical than kraft white liquor,
and theoretically should be obtainable in any quantity from a kraft
recovery system without upsetting the chemical balance. The field
is relatively new and untapped, and considerably more information
should be obtained to put this concept of pulping into proper perspective.
Hardwood species have been traditionally used for corrugating
medium, but in recent years various softwoods such as Georgia pine
and Douglas-fir have been utilized as mills have discovered proper
methods of pulping these species. Douglas-fir, because of its preva-
lence and good structural qualities, is the major lumber species in
the Pacific Northwest region, and thus Douglas-fir chips produced
as a residual material from the manufacture of lumber are the commonest and one of the cheapest fiber sources in this region.
For
these reasons, Douglas-fir was chosen for this project as the source
of wood for the kraft green liquor semi-chemical pulping process for
the manufacture of corrugating medium.
The basic objectives of this project:
.
To study the effect of chemical charge, chip size, bark content,
cooking temperature, and liquor sulfidity on green liquor pulping of
Douglas-fir for corrugating medium.
2,
To investigate the cooking conditions for optimizing pulp proper-
ties desirable for corrugating medium.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Kraft green liquor has been studied recently as an alternative
chemical to NSSC liquor for production of corrugating medium with
good success (Worster, 1973). It is a milder pulping material than
kraft white liquor and seems to impart the desired qualities to the
semi-chemical pulp for the production of corrugating medium.
Only a few articles have been published regarding green liquor
pulping for semi-chemical pulps, including articles by Vardheim
of Defibrator Aktiebolag (1967), Yerger of Owens-Illinois (1972),
Worster (1973), Battan, Ahlquist and Snyder (1975), Charbonnier,
Rushton and Schwalbe (1974), and Dawson (1974). No mention has
been made in these articles of green liquor pulping on Douglas-fir
for corrugating medium.
Corrugating Medium
Corrugating medium, the inner, fluted portion of a corrugated
box, is a major commodity in the pulp and paper industry. Corru-
gated boxes are an important item in all industries, being used for
the shipping of materials as diverse as heavy machinery to food, and
this segment of the paper industry has shown steady growth over the
past decade with a projected continuation of this growth rate. Rebeck
(1973) reported that the corrugated box industry has an average rate
5
of growth of 5. 7 percent per year for the ten year period from 1963
to 1972. Pollitzer (1972) reported that in the U. S. about 4.3 million
tons of corrugating medium are produced annually. At a price of
$200 per ton, this represents an income of $860 million nationally.
Corrugating medium is normally made by a high-yield pulping
process from a variety of woods, and hardwoods have been traditionally favored for this product. In recent years various softwoods
such as Douglas-fir and southern pine have been utilized as mills
have discovered proper methods of pulping these species.
Properties of corrugating medium and corrugating boards made
from NSSC, GLSC, and Kraft SC pulps were covered by Chides ter
(1969), Becker and Galdwell (1974), Charbonnier (1974), Dawson
(1974), and Battan et al. (1975).
Kraft Process
In the kraft (sulfate) process a mixture of sodium sulfide (Na2S)
and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is used to pulp the wood to produce a
pulp of high quality. Sodium sulfate (Na2S04) is used as a make-up
chemical to replace any chemical losses during pulping and liquor
recovery.
The major inorganic reactions of liquor components were
discussed by Wenzl (1967), Whitney (1968), and Clayton (1969).
The reactions of the cooking chemicals with lignin were
reported by Clayton (1968), and Wenzl (1967).
Spent liquors from the kraft process (black liquor) are recovered through the recovery system which includes the multiple effect
evaporator, recovery furnace, and causticizing requirement. This
operation is discussed by Wenzl (1967), Whitney (1968), Casey
(1961), and Tomlinson and Richter (1969).
The chemical losses (sodium salt) in the kraft process might
normally be between 5 and 15% of the total amount circulating.
Sod-
ium sulfate (Na2SO4) as the make-up chemical is added to the heavy
black liquor prior to incineration being subsequently reduced in the
recovery furnace by the carbon monoxide.
A simplified diagram which illustrates the cyclic nature of
the kraft recovery process is shown in Fig
1.
Neutral Sulfite Semi-Chemical (NSSC) Process
Semi-chemical pulping is a two-stage pulping process; in the
first stage a mild chemical treatment is used for partial removal of
lignin and hemicellulose to weaken the intercellular bonding of chips,
followed by mechanical treatment to separate the individual fibers.
Because of the mild nature of the pulping chemicals and the short
cooking time, the pulp yield is relatively high, usually about 60 to
80% (Chidester, 1969).
Traditionally, most corrugating medium has been manufactured
water
chips
mud washer
white liquor
digester
(Na2
S + NaOH
( CaCO3 )
NI
weak black liquor
(R-ONa, R-SH, R-SNa)
clarifier
mud
thickener
[Ca(OH)2 + Na2C
causticizer
2 Na0 + CaCO
CaCO3
lime kiln
CaO-"t
green liquor
(Na2CO3 + Na2S)
evaporator
green liquor
clarifier
strong black liquor
dregs
washer
dissolving tank
smelt
makeup chemical
(Na2 SO4
recovery furnace
)
(Na2 SO4 + CO
weak liquor
Na2S + 4 CO2)
A
(R-ONa - Na2 CO3 + heat)
Fig.
1
Simplified diagram of the kraft recovery process.
by the NSSC process which was developed in the 1930 s (Worster,
1973; Chidester, 1969).
In this process, the wood chips are pulped
with a solution of sodium sulfite (Na2SO3) containing small amounts
of an alkaline agent such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), or sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) for relatively short
periods of time, varying from 15 to 60 minutes. Some lignin and
hemicellulose are removed through sulfonation and hydrolysis, and
the rigid matrix in which the wood fibers are bound together is
softened.
After washing, the cooked chips, which are still quite hard due
to the high lignin content, are sent to a disk mill for disintegrating.
Further refining is usually needed to develop the necessary pulp
properties for the end product.
Spent liquors from NSSC mills do not contain many compounds
specifically toxic to aquatic life, but because of the deep color and
biodegradable material that can consume dissolved oxygen in water,
they are objectionable if dumped untreated into streams of limited
flow.
NSSC spent liquor can be collected, evaporated, burned, and
converted back into fresh NSSC liquor in a manner similar to the
kraft recovery process that has proven so successful.
The pulping process and properties of NSSC pulps are covered
by Casey (1966), Rydholm (1967), Chidester (1969), and
9
McGovern (1962).
Cross Recovery
The chemistry of the NSSC recovery process is considerably
more complex than that of the kraft process, and the heat value per
pound of solids of NSSC spent liquor is lower than that of the kraft
spent liquor (6 to 12 million Btu for NSSC vs. 21 million for kraft
per ton of pulp produced) (Chidester, 1969; Wenzl, 1967). Thus capital
investments are higher and the process is much more difficult to con-
trol than the kraft recovery process. Because of the low initial cost
of the cooking chemicals, sulfur and caustic, there has been little
economic incentive for the high capital expenditure for recovery
plants.
In recent years, an economical and effective method adopted
by a number of mills in the industry is that of cross-recovery
(Worster, 1973; Chidester, 1969) in which both NSSC and kraft
operations are conducted at the same site. The kraft mill is built
conventionally, except that the recovery system is designed larger
than necessary for a lone kraft mill, of the same pulp capacity.
The spent NSSC liquors are introduced to the kraft recovery
system, where they are evaporated, burned, causticized, and converted to kraft white liquor. The sulfur (S) and soda (NaOH) obtained
from NSSC spent liquor can be considered as a source of make-up
10
pulping chemicals for the kraft process, and it replaces the traditional source of this material, namely salt cake (Na2 SO4 ). The kraft
mill credits the NSSC mill for the value of these chemicals supplied,
which partially offsets the cost of fresh sulfur and alkali for the NSSC
mill. The NSSC mill buys fresh raw material for pulping and pre-
pares fresh cooking liquor for each batch..
A simplified diagram which illustrates the cross-recovery
process is shown in Fig.
2.
NSSC MILL
KRAFT MILL
White liquor
Digester
Causticizing
department
Weak 'black
liquor
Recovery furnace
Fig. 2.
Evaporator
Fresh chemicals
Digester
Weak spent liquor, as
makeup chemicals
for kraft process
Simplified block diagram of the cross-recovery process.
In the cross-recovery process, the chemical balance of the
system may be perfect, or there may be an excess of chemicals
coming from the NSSC process to supply make-up chemicals for the
In the cross-recovery process, the chemical balance of the
system may be perfect, or there may be an excess of chemicals coming from the NSSC process to supply make-up chemicals for the kraft
process. To utilize all of the chemical from the NSSC spent liquor,
the kraft mill should have about three times the pulp capacity of the
NSSC mill (Chidester, 1969). Otherwise, the mill (kraft) must dis-
pose of its excess liquor, usually the green liquor. This is done by
the Western Kraft Co. mill in Albany, Oregon, which sells its excess
green liquor to other kraft mills. Production of NSSC pulp in excess
Of this limit leads to operating problems in the kraft recovery plant,
such as high liquor viscosity, imbalance of the sodium-sulfur ratio,
lower heat value per pound of spent liquor solids (due to the lower
organic content of the NSSC spent liquor), which makes it more difficult to maintain combustion in the recovery furnace.
Green Liquor Semi-Chemical (GLSC) Process
During recent years kraft green liquor has been considered as
an alternative chemical to NSSC liquor in the semi-chemical pulping
process for producing corrugating medium. The GLSC process has
several advantages over the NSSC process in a cross-recovery situation.
1.
There should be no restrictions to the ratio of semi-chemical
to kraft pulp production. Based on actual commercial practice
12
at the Georgia-Pacific mill in Toledo, Oregon, the organicinorganic ratio and the sodium-sulfur ratio of the semi-chemical
spent liquors are very similar to those of the kraft spent liquors,
and thus the operation of the recovery system is not affected by
burning the semi-chemical spent liquors in any proportion.
.
The green liquor process could be installed in an existing kraft
mill with little or no modification of existing equipment, assuming the recovery boiler and evaporator are large enough.
3.
Capital investment for a green liquor pulping facility would
be somewhat less than that for a comparable capacity kraft
mill, and substantially below that for a NSSC mill with independent recovery.
.
The pulp mill making the medium does not need to purchase
fresh pulping chemicals.
Fig. 3 illustrates the cyclical nature of the kraft and GLSC
processes.
Vardheim (1967) has published the most definitive article,
justifying the idea on the basis of reduced water pollution compared
to a NSSC mill. He reported that mill production material was com-
parable in quality to standard NSSC medium, with the exception of
darker color and slight odor to the green liquor medium. Yerger (1972)
reported that a variety of treated green liquors were used to prepare
corrugating medium, and that the latter were comparable in quality
white liquor
chips
causticizing department
digester
green liquor
digeste
cooked
chips
pulp
KRAFT MILL
weak black
liquor
Fig.
3.
recovery
furnace
evaporator
GLSC MILL
spe t liquor
Diagram showing cyclic nature of the kraft recovery process and GLSC process.
14
with commercial NSSC medium. A German patent of Cederquist and
Defibrator (1973) reported that "GLSC spent liquor is thickened and
subjected to combustion to give a Na sulfide and Na carbonate smelt,
which is dissolved in water for the preparation of new cooking liquor. "
Considerable work has been done in eastern Europe (Szwarcsztajn,
1968; Lyubavskaya and Sazonova, 1971), but the information published
is sketchy. Worster (1973) reveiwed recent developments in semi-
chemical pulping and stated "The green liquor pulping process has
a very low capital cost compared to sodium base NSSC pulping and
is particularly attractive for an integrated NSSC kraft mill. It
Dawson (1974) reported that, in the laboratory evaluation of
green liquor semichemica.1 hardwood (predominantly oak and gum)
pulp, tensile strength and Concora strength of GLSC pulps were
similar to those of Olinkraft's NSSC pulps at 75% yield. A possible
exception may be that the tensile strength of the GLSC tends to drop
off below 200 CSF, whereas the NSSC pulp does not.
Less chemicals
were required with green liquor pulping to produce the desired 75%
yield pulp than are required with neutral sulfite pulp. It was apparent
that the GLSC pulp had higher lignin contents at equal yields. It also
appears that the GLSC and NSSC pulps required essentially the same
amount of refining work (Valley beater) to drop the freeness from
500 to 200 ml CSF.
Mill trials indicated that tensile and Concora strengths of GLSC
15
pulps were equivalent to those of NSSC pulps, and both NSSC and
GLSC pulps were lower in tensile and Concora strength than the
corresponding laboratory produced pulps. A general tendency for
green liquor pulps was that they required more beating time to lower
the freeness to 500 ml CSF. Also GLSC pulps may exhibit slightly
greater densities.
Dawson then concluded that the GLSC hardwood pulp was equiva-
lent to Olinkraft's NSSC pulp in properties desirable for corrugating
medium, except that the former showed a slightly lower caliper and
required the use of a wetting agent on the paper machine to give
desired water absorption properties. The GLSC pulp had a distinctively darker color than NSSC pulp. Corrugator trials showed the
GLSC corrugating mediur . to be equal to NSSC corrugating medium
in handling, runnability, and quality.
The Virginia Fibre Corporation, at Riverville, Va. , has carried
out an experimental program to evaluate the possibilities of producing
a high yield unbleached pine (Georgia pine) pulp by cooking with green
liquor. Charbonnier, Rushton, and Schwalbe (1974) reported that in
the pilot-plant runs, several rolls of 26-lb linerboard and 78-lb sack
paper were produced with green-liquor pulped pine, and corrugating
medium was produced with a furnish of 85% green-liquor-pulped
hardwood (predominantly oak) and 15% green-liquor-pulped pine.
The products were successfully converted in commercial operation
16
to produce sack paper and corrugating containers, but the tearing
strength of the sack paper was substantially below that for most com-
mercial sacks.
The corrugating medium had a Concora strength of 88 lb/10
flutes, and a combined board flat crush of 37.6 psi.
These figures
are substantially above industry averages. The runnability of the
corrugating medium was classed as "reasonably good" and would be
expected to improve by reducing refining.
The chemical charge and cooking time were both substantially
greater than with green liquor semichemical pulping of the hardwoods,
and the color of all the products was rather dark brown. These drawbacks might be offset by the high yield (average of 70% or higher) and
the elimination of the causticizing and lime reburning equipment which
is required in the kraft recovery process.
Charbonnier et al. concluded that "the green liquor pine pulps
should have a place in the production of linerboard for inside liners,
for use in the bottom sheet of linerboard when a secondary headbox is
used,.
.
and for heavyweight sack paper, can stock, fiber drum
stock, laminated products, etc. "
The Weyerhaeuser mill at Valliant, Oklahoma, uses a wood
supply consisting of 90% mixed oaks (45% red oak and 45% white oak)
and 10% other mixed hardwoods for the production of corrugating
medium by cooking with green liquor or blends of NSSC liquor and
17
green liquor. Battan, Ahiquist, and Snyder (1975) reported that, in
laboratory experiments, the yield with 100% NSSC liquor rises consid-
erably with the decrease in cooking temperature but with the introduc-
tion of green liquor the effect of temperature reduction on yield is
considerably less.
Concora values are not affected by the ratios of NSSC and green
liquors but are highly dependent on the pulping temperature for all
cooking liquors, dropping sharply as the cooking temperature is
lowered below 160°C.
This lost in Concora strength also takes place
even though there is, in most cases, only a slight increase in yield.
The 5 min. Kappa Number values indicate that, at higher cooking
temperatures, the yield loss is being affected by cellulose being removed at a higher rate than lignin and that lignin condensation reactions may be taking place. The pulping temperature should thus be
maintained above 160°C, and 170°C is preferable. Pulp yield cannot
be expected to be over 72% while maintaining maximum pulp quality.
The ratio of total chemicals from the NSSC liquor and the green
liquor does not significantly affect the pulping characteristics of the
system or the quality of the pulp produced.
The variations in sulfidity of the green liquor will not signifi-
cantly affect the pulping characteristics of the system or the quality
of the pulp produced.
in the pulping rate.
Increased sulfidity causes only a slight increase
18
The 5 min Kappa Number tests do not provide a good indication
of pulp yield and pulp quality. Blow pH may be used as an indication
to determine if the percent total chemical charge is adequate.
In mill practice, actual pulping temperatures were slightly less
than those determined by research, and the cooking times were much
longer. Total chemical charges of 8. 0-12. 0% Na20 based on o. d.
wood produced good quality corrugating medium.
The GLSC pulp is combined with refined kraft pulp, broke, and
repulped corrugated carton clippings to produce corrugating medium.
The resulting dark color corrugating medium has the same strength
properties as those from NSSC pulps.
Experimental Design
The object of this project was to study the effect of five process
variables, cooking temperature, chemical to wood ratio, sodium to
sulfur ratio, chip size, and bark content on the pulping response
Douglas-fir chips for production of GLSC corrugating medium.
The cooking conditions and levels of variables are shown in
Table 1.
of
Table 1. Cooking conditions.
Variables
Total alkali
Levels
)5-4-
%*
-2
Code
Bark
Code
Chip size
Code
Sulfidity
Code
0.0
%
-2
in.
IS 'Es
0
0
(+3/8 - 5/8)
-1
0
%
15.0
-2
155.0
-2
1-2. t 0
14 , 2
+1
+2
7.5
5.0
(+1/16, -3/8)
Temperature
Code
Liquor to wood ratio**
Heat system
Digester type
S.E-
-1
2.5
-1
20.0
25.0
-1
162.5
-1
0
170.0
0
+1
(+5/8 -1-1/8)
+1
30.0
35.0
+1
+2
177.5
+1
4:1
Steam, indirect
Rotary digester
Schedule
Time to temperature
Time at temperature
Pressure
Blow time
10-15 min.
60 min.
variable with temperature
5 min.
Wood input
Chips + Bark
10.0
+2
5,000 grn (0.D. )/cook
*Total alkali %
: (0.D. weight of total alkali (as Na20)/0. D. weight of wood) x 100.
**Liquor to wood ratio: Total weight of liquor (includes water in wet wood)/total weight of wood (0. D. ).
185.0
+2
'Jr
20
The above variables were incorporated into a factorial experiment as described by Cochran and Cox (1957).
The plan does not
include cooks at all possible levels of the factorial design. This
would involve a total of 5x5x5x5x3 = 1,875 cooks, but with the design
as given by Cochran and Cox, only 30 cooks were involved. The plan
is shown in Table 2.
Multiple linear regression and simple linear regression programs were used in this project for the statistical analysis of the data
giving the regression coefficients relating the response of the pulp
properties (such as cooking yield, physical strengths, and pH's and
total solids in spent liquor) to the individual cooking variables, as
well as the interaction of the variables. This analysis can suggest
optimum pulping conditions for the pulp properties, and would be
valuable to those who may wish to use green liquor pulping in com-
mercial practice.
21
Table 2. Experimental plan.
N = 30 treatment combinations
5 x - variable
1/2 replicate of 25 factorial + star design + 6 points in the center
Cooking variables
Cook number*
T. A. %
Bark 9i,
Chip size, in.
Sulfidity
X1
X2
X3
X4
7
6
19
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
1
27
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
9
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
Temp. °C
X5
1
-1
-1
1
-1
24
1
-1
-1
5
-1
1
1
13
1
1
1
4
-1
11
1
1
22
30
-1
1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
28
-1
1
1
1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
12
1
-1
-1
1
1
14
-1
1
1
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2 *
0
0
0
0
0
0
2**
0
1
-2
16
2
26
25
0
0
-2
0
0
2
20
23
0
0
0
3
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29***
21***
2***
8***
17***
18***
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
0
0
0
0
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
*Randomized order.
**Only 3 levels of chip size were used in the actual experimental work as per Cochran's plan.
These two experiments were thus not performed.
***Control cooks, 6 replication of the cooks in the center of the plan.
22
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Material Flow Sheet
Douglas-fir Chips
SECTION (I).
Chemical Treatments
Screening
Small
Medium
Chemical %
Temperature °C
%
Bark
Large
Rotary Digester
Sulfidity
T. S., pH of
Waste Liquor
Cooked Chips
Yield
Bauer Refiner
SECTION (II).
Mechanical Treatments
Hypochlorite
Number
1
Defiberated Pulp
1
PFI Mill
Handsheets
Physical Testing
Fig. 4. Flow sheet of materials.
%
23
Sample Selection
This project was part of the project "Kraft green liquor pulping
of red alder and Douglas-fir for production of corrugating medium,"
which was to study wood variations and process variables in order to
provide optimum manufacturing conditions for commercial practice
for red alder as well as for Douglas-fir woods.
This part of the whole project was devoted to the study of
Douglas-fir wood.
Since the bark content varies from cook to cook,
it was more convenient to obtain the bark and chips separately. Bark-
free commercial Douglas-fir chips were obtained from the Western
Kraft Corp. mill at Albany, Oregon, and Douglas-fir bark was obtained frotr4 Oregon State University's McDonald Forest.
Sample Preparation
Chips
Several drums of bark-free Douglas-fir chips were thoroughly
blended together. A random sample of the chips was screened using
the Williams chip classifier, and the chips were separated into the
following fractions: +1-1/8", - 1-1/8" + 7/8", - 7/8" +5/8", - 5/8"
+ 3/8", - 3/8" + 3/16", - 3/16" + 1/16", and - 1/16". The symbol
- 7/8 + 5/8" means that the fraction passed through the 7/8" screen
but was retained on the 5/8" screen.
24
The statistical program called for three chip sizes, - 3/8",
+ 3/8" - 5/8", and + 5/8" with the fine (- 1/16") and oversized
(+1-1/8") chips being screened out. The well mixed chips were
packed in fiber drums lined with polyethylene bags and stored in
a cold room at 4°C for one week to allow the moisture content to
come to equilibrium.
Bark from McDonald Forest was chipped and screened, and the
fine (- 1/16") and oversized (+ 1-1/8") bark fractions were screened
out.
The chipped bark was thoroughly mixed, and stored in a cold
room similarly to the chips.
Three replicate solids determinations were made on the bark
and on the three different chip fractions, and averaged to give the
values used for calculating the oven dry weights of bark and chips
used in the pulping experiments.
The percent solids were calculated using the following formula:
Oven dry weight of chips (or bark) dried at 105
Solids % Wet weight of chips (or bark)
of,
100
The solids contents were checked at regular intervals to check
for any possible changes in moisture.
25
Chemical Treatment
Preparation of Cooking Liquor
The synthetic green liquor for each cooking experiment was
prepared according to the statistical design, as given in Table 1.
Green liquor produced in a kraft mill usually contains a small amount
of NaOH, because weak white liquor is sometimes used to dissolve
the furnace smelt. In green liquor semi-chemical pulping, however,
a causticizing step is not required, so NaOH was not used in this
experiment. Predetermined amounts of Na2 CO3 (technical grade)
and a concentrated stock solution of Na2 S (technical grade) were
mixed with tap water to give a final liquor to wood ratio of 4:1.
The concentrations of sodium sulfide (Na2S), sodium carbonate
(Na2 CO3
) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in the cooking liquors were
measured using the titration procedure of TAPPI Standard Method
T 624 m-60.
B = Effect alkali = NaOH + -24-Na2S
= (Vol. HC1 to pH 7. 5) x (N HC1) x 6. 2
C = Active alkali = NaOH + Na2S
= (Vol. 1-1C1 to pH 7. 5) x (N HC1) x 6. 2
(as Na20) g/1
-- with BaC1
(as Na20) g/1
with BaC12 &
formaldehyde
A = Total alkali = NaOH + Na2CO3 + Na2S
= (Vol. HC1 to pH 4. 0) x (N HC1) x 6. 2
(as Na2 0) g/1
26
% Sulfidity = 2 ((C-B)/A) x 100
= (Na2 S/(Na2S + NaOH + Na2 CO3 )) x 100
as Na20)
Note: 5 ml liquor sample was used for titration.
Cooking Conditions
The digester used had a rotating speed of 1/3 rpm, and was
heated with either an external heat jacket or by direct steam injection.
The steam flow to the digester was regulated by a Honeywell Electronik 15 Cam Controller. The internal digester pressure was
checked with two gages, one in the control panel and the other on
the digester. The internal digester temperature was measured with
a thermocouple. Because steam line condensate would change the
liquor to wood ratio in the digester, direct steam injection was not
used.
Instead the temperature was regulated using the external
heating jacket.
The controller matched the thermocouple temperature
with the set point temperature by changing the amount of steam entering the external heat jacket.
The required amount of cooking liquor and 5, 000 gm (oven dry
basis) of wood (chips and bark) were loaded into the digester manually. After capping, the rotating digester was brought to temperature
as quickly as possible by feeding steam into the external heat jacket.
When the proper temperature was reached, it was then controlled
by the automatic cam controller.
27
At the end of the cooking cycle, the digester pressure was
relieved by blowing the black liquor through a water jacketed con-
denser to a container. Total weight of the black liquor was measured
and samples of the black liquor were saved for further testing (pH,
total alkali %, and total solids %).
The chips were manually removed from the digester, and
allowed to cool to room temperature by spreading them on the floor.
They were then packed in polyethylene bags and stored at room tem-
perature to allow the moisture content to come to equilibrium throughout the batch.
Three samples each of 25 gm were taken from each batch,
defiberated in the PFI mill, washed, dewatered, and dried to determine the solids content of the cooked chips. The averaged value was
used for calculating the cooking yield (unscreened yield):
% T. S. x (total cooked chip weight (wet weight)) x 100
% Cooking yield - Uncooked chip weight (oven dry weight )
Black liquor samples were analyzed for total alkali content by
potentiometric titration of 5 ml of liquor with HC1:
T. A. g/1 (as Na20) = (Vol. of HC1 for pH 7 to 4)
HC1) x 6. 2
The total solids content was measured for each black liquor
sample using the following formula:
T. S. % =
Oven dry weight of black liquor dried at 105±3°C, 16 hr x 100
Wet weight of black liquor at room temperature
28
Hypo Number Test
As a normal procedure, both in the laboratory and in the pulp
mill, the Kappa number test is used for the determination of the relative lignin content of the pulp, which is a valuable measure of the pulp
quality. However, this test can be applied only to pulps with yields
of less than 70 percent (TAPPI Standard Method T 253 os-75). Batten
et al. (1975) reported that the 5 min. Kappa number test does not
provide a good indication of pulp yield and quality for high yield pulps.
Since the yields of some of the cooks in this experiment exceeded
70 percent, the Kappa number test method cannot be relied upon.
Hence, the Hypo number test, a new method for the estimation of the
lignin content of high yield (relatively high lignin content) pulps, was
used in this project instead of the Kappa number test.
The Hypo number test method is based on the same principle
of pulp treatment as the chlorine number test and measures about
the same pulp properties as the Kappa number test, except that it
can be applied to high yield pulps.
"Pulp is reacted with acidified hypochlorite solution at 25°C
for ten minutes. The amount of chlorine consumed by the pulp is
determined by titration and expressed as Hypo number (TAPPI,
T253 os-75).
29
Chip Disintegration
At the conclusion of the pulping operation, semi-chemical chips
are still relatively hard and undefibered, because insufficient lignin
has been removed to permit easy defiberization.
Full chemical cooks
produce relatively soft chips that break up nearly completely into individual fibers during the blowing operation, but this does not happen
with semichemical cooks, and additional mechanical action is needed
to defiber the chips. The chips are conventionally disintegrated in
a disk refiner, such as the Bauer 187 in the Forest Research Laboratory, following which the pulp is washed and screened.
Normally the
operating conditions of the disk refiner are such that the pulp has
a high freeness, usually 600-700 ml CSF, in order to facilitate the
washing operations, etc. Following washing, the semi-chemical pulp
is further refined to lower freenesses, typically between 200 and
400 ml CSF.
The final freeness desired is variable from mill to
mill, and is controlled by the degree of refining in extra stages of
refining that follow the chip disintegration stage.
In this project, the cooked chips were disintegrated in the Bauer
187 refiner, and the plate gap was adjusted to produce pulps with
freenesses between 650 and 700 ml CSF. The final pulp refining was
done in the laboratory PFI mill.
The cooked chips were dumped into the hopper, and were fed
into the refining area with a constant flow of hot water to adjust the
30
consistency and help move the chips through the refiner.
The deliberated pulps were collected and dewatered in a Bock
centrifuge, packed in polyethylene bags, and stored in a cold room
at 4°C to allow the moisture contents to come to equilibrium,
Three
samples each of 25 gm wet basis were taken from each pulp, refined
in the PFI mill, washed, dewatered, and dried to determine the solids
content of the defiberated pulp.
The power consumption of defiberating was determined by timing a known quantity of cooked chips through the refiner and obtaining
a reading of energy consumption from an integrated watt-hour meter.
Pulp Refining
Semi-chemical pulps are normally given a certain amount o
refining before conversion into corrugating medium, since the physi-
cal properties of the medium (burst, tensile, crush strengths, etc. )
are heavily influenced by the amount of refining and the final pulp
freeness. The level of refining is variable from one mill to another,
and is influenced by such factors as wood species, pulp yield (degree
of delignification), and amount of recycled fiber that is mixed with
the virgin pulp, to name a few. Typical commercial semi-chemical
pulp freenesses are 200-400 ml CSF, and in this project each pulp
was refined in the PFI mill to 200 ml CSF or below.
Normally this
was accomplished with 1,000 revolutions of the PFI mill.
31
For each beating interval, a sample of 24. 0 gm o. d. (calculated) disintegrated pulp was randomly taken from the polyethylene
bags, tap water added to give a 10% consistency, and the total amount
of 240 gm of wet pulp was put in the PFI mill, and beaten for the
proper number of revolutions.
Handsheet Formation
With few exceptions, samples for one freeness evaluation, six
handsheets at 60 gsm (gm./sq. meter) basis weight, and two corrugating medium test (GMT) handsheets at 126 gsm (= 26 lb/1, 000 sq. ft)
basis weight were made from each of the four beater interval (0, 300,
650, and 1,000 revolutions) samples. Ha.ndsheets were made in accordance with TAPPI Standard T205 m-58.
Handsheet Testing
The handsheets were conditioned in a TAPPI standard room at
73°F and a. relative humidity of 50% for a minimum of 48 hours prior
to testing.
For each interval, two CMT handsheets were tested in accordance with TAPPI Standard T809 os-71. Five of the other six hand-
sheets were selected for physical tests, with the remaining one sheet
being saved for reference purposes.
Physical properties were determined in accordance with TAPPI
32
Standard T220 m-60. An Instron TT-BLM testing machine was used
for measuring the breaking length, stretch, and CMT. The testing
machine was set at a crosshead speed of 1 cm/min. and the chart
speed was 10 cm/min.
A summary of physical test methods is given in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of physical tests.
Test
Freeness
TAPPI Standard Method
T227 m-58
Test Instrument
Units of Measurement
Canadian Standard
Milliliters
Freeness Tester
Sheet density
T220 m-60
Caliper Model-549
Gram per cubic centimeter
Micrometer
Breaking length
T404 ts-66
Instron TT-BLM
Meters
Stretch
T457 m-46
Instron
Percent
Stiffness
T489 m-60
Taber V-5
Modulus of elasticity, lb per sq. in.
Burst factor
T403 ts-63
Perkins Model C
Square meters per sq. centimeter
Mullen Tester
Tear factor
T414 ts-65
Elmendorf Tearing
Square decimeter per sheet
Tester
Fold endurance
T511 su-66
MIT Fold Tester
Number of double folds
Corrugating medium
T809 os-71
Instron TT-BLM
lb per 10 flutes
test (Concora)
34
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sample Preparation
A random sample of the bark-free Douglas-fir chips was
screened using the Williams chip classifier, and in Table 4, the
chip size distribution of this sample is given.
Table 4. Size classification of Douglas-fir chips.
Screen fraction (%)
Chip size
+ 1-1/8"
3. 3
1-1/8" +7/8"
6. 3
7/8" + 5/8"
5/8/1, + 3/8"
3/8" + 3/16"
41. 9
3/1611 + 1/16"
4. 2
1/16"
O. 4
19. 3
24. 6
100.0
Total
The statistical program called for three chip sizes, - 3/8",
+ 3/8" - 5/8", and + 5/8" with the fine (- 1/16") and oversized
(+ 1-1/8") chips being screened out.
Pulping Results
The multiple regression analysis, multiple regression equations, effect of independent variables, and predicted maximum value
35
and maximum value conditions of cooking variables (total alkali %,
chip size, sulfidity %, bark %, and temperature) on pulping results
(total solids in waste liquor, pH value of waste liquor, and pulp yield)
are given in Tables 5 and 6.
Total Solids in Waste Liquor
From Table 5 R2 = 0. 891, F value 7- 5. 483, indicated that the
total solids in waste liquor (T. S. W. L. ) are highly correlated to the
cooking variables at the 0. 05 significance level.
Table 5 revealed
that the total alkali (T. A. ) (-h) had the most effect on total solids in
waste liquor at the 0. 01 significance level, and the cooking tempera-
ture also had some effect on the total solids in waste liquor.
Table 6 shows that at high LA., high temperature, high bark,
high sulfidity, and large chip size, T. S. W. L. has the maximum value
of 1, 583 g.
pH Value of Waste Liquor
From Table 5 78% of the pH value of waste liquor can be ex-
plained by the multiple regression analysis (not significant). Table 5
indicates that the T. A. and temperature are the most important variables. The pH value is of importance to the pulp mill only as a cri-
terion of the consumption of the cooking chemicals, and there is no
significance attached to its maximization.
Table 5.
Multiple regression of cooking variables to pulping results.
-F value
d. f.
Variables
T. S. in waste liquor, g.
20
Total terms
First order termsl
Second order terms
Lack of fit
5
4.708
15
1.993
2.123
4
R oz, total terms
T. A.
0A*
Bark
%**
Chip size
Sulfidity
71***
Note:
1.
pH value in waste liquor
1.840
6.508
0.835
0. 891
Error( mealuguare) x 102
%****
Temperature
5.483 ( 0. 05)t(a)
°C*****
5
49.3
14.96 (0.005)
0.19
0.66
0.67
1.46
Yield %
2. 920 (0. 25)
1.717
1.420
1. 274
1. 583
0.783
0. 838
5. 6
3. 05 (0. 25)
2. 33 (0. 25)
15. 1
4.01 (0. 10)
0.50
0.62
0.95
1.32
2. 39 (-0. 25)
1.09
1.53
First order terms = X( 1 )+... +X(5).
Second order terms = X(6)+... +X(20).
o
X(1) = T. A. %, X(2) = Bark %, X( 3) = Chip size, X(4) = Sulfidity %, X( 5) = Temperature
X(6)= X(1)2, X(7) = X(2)2, X(8)= X(3)2, X(9)= X(4)2, X(10)= X(5)2;
= X(1) x X(2),
=
1) x X(3),
X(3) x X(5),
= X(4) x X(5).
, Temperature (as a single first order term and five second order terms)
The complete effects of Total alkali %, Bark %,
were listed by deleting the six appropriate variables from the full response surface model.
X(1), X(6), X( 11), X(12), X(13), and X(14) were deleted.
**
X(2), X(7), X(11), X(15), X(16), and X(17) were deleted.
***
X(3), X(8), X(12), X(15), X(18), and X(20) were deleted.
*4** X(4), X(9), X 13), X(16), X(18), and X(20) were deleted.
***** X( 5), X( 10), X(14), X( 17), X( 19), and X( 20) were deleted.
( a),
significance level.
Table .6. Predicted maximum value of pulping results.
X( 1)
Maximum value conditions
X(4)
X (3)
X(2)
+2
+1
Pulping results
T. S. in waste liquor, g
pH value in waste liquor
Pulping yield, %
Note:
0
-2
-2
-2
-1
X(5)
Y, predicted maximum
value
1583.1
-2
-2
9.83
-2
91.64
X(1) = total alkali %.
= bark content %.
= chip size, ".
= Sulfidity %.
= Temperature
Three levels (-2, 0, and +2) of each of the five cooking variables were chosen to find out the predicted maximum value and maximum
value conditions, by using the multiple regression analysis equations which are given in Appendix Table 1.
38
Pulp Yield
From Table 5 pulp yields are highly correlated to the cooking
variable (R2=0.84), and Table 5 indicates that the T. A. (-) is the
most important variable.
Table 6 shows that lower T. A. , lower temperature, lower bark
content, higher sulfidity, and larger chip size, result in the maximum
pulp yield value. With the possible exception of the sulfidity variable,
these other effects are consistent with generally accepted principles
of pulping, i. e.
mild conditions produce pulps with high yields.
A simple linear regression related T. S. W. L. to pulp yield with
R2 = 0. 19, at the 0. 025 significance level.
Hypo Number Test
Most unbleached pulps are routinely tested for lignin content
in commercial operations. The Klason lignin test is tedious and
lengthy, and alternative methods of estimating lignin content have
been devised. Most of these tests are based on oxidation of the lignin
by specific chemicals such as KmnO4 (potassium permanganate - the
K number, or alternatively, the Kappa number test), or by various
chlorine compounds such as NaC10, sodium hypochlorite. The K no.
or Kappa no. test works best with full chemical pulps that are well
delignified (about 50% pulp yield) but lacks precision and accuracy
39
with semi-chemical pulps that are incompletely delignified (60%
yield and higher). Recent developments have suggested that oxidation
with NaC10 is a good method of estimating the lignin content of semi-
chemical pulps with precision and accuracy, and it was examined in
this project for its utility.
Since the precision of yield determination for the control cooks
was poor, it was decided to test these pulps first to see if there was
a good correlation between the yield and the hypo numbers of the six
different pulps (Table 7). Theoretically they should be positively
correlated. A casual examination a the data suggests poor correlation, and this is verified by the r2 of the linear regression, 0. 02.
Particularly disturbing is the fact that the hypo numbers of the highest yield cook (no. 27) and the lowest yield cook no 14) are identical, in spite of the difference in yield of 13%.
Examination of the pulps revealed that the high yield pulp, cook
no.
27, had a large percentage of shives, or fiber bundles, compared
to the low yield pulp, cook no.
14.
Past research work has estab-
lished that one of the reasons for the poor precision and accuracy
a the Kappa number test, in the high yield region, is the presence
of large amounts of shives. The oxidizing chemical does not pene-
trate the shives as readily as it penetrates dispersed fibers, and so
the chemical consumption for a high yield pulp is not as great as it
should be.
Table 7. Hypo number test.
Cook No.
2*
8*
17*
18*
21*
29*
27
Yield %
70.17
71.36
70.01
70.41
67.34
67.75
78.75
PFI revolutions
300
Sample weight
0.4790
(o.d.g )
0.3923
300
0.5437
300
0.5631
300
300
0.4594
0.4849
300
0.4936
300
0.4843
14
65.52
300
0.4318
0.4589
Hypo no.
39.19
30.12
31.39
31.18
29.41
29.44
* Control cooks
Three samples of control cook no. 2 were tested to determine the variability of this test.
Dried handsheets were disintegrated and used as test specimens.
Sample weight 0.5 gm (o. d. ).
r2 = 0.02 for linear regression, hypo number vs. yield.
29.68
28,42
29.86
29.85
41
To see if this phenomenon had any effect on the results of the
hypo test, samples of cook no. 27 were disintegrated for 600 and 900
revolutions in the PFI mill, and duplicate hypo number tests were
performed for each sample (Table 8). From this data, it appeared
that the hypo value passes through a maximum at 600 revolutions
which did not seem reasonable.
Table 8. Hypo number vs. beating revolution (PFI).
Cook no.
27
Revolution
Sample weight (o.d. g )
Hypo no.
600
0.470
33.92
600
0.502
34.18
900
0.455
3.50
900
0. 536
32. 31
Note: At each revolution level two samples were tested. Dried handsheets (dry samples) were
used as test specimens.
Another factor which was checked was the initial pulp condition.
If dried pulp is used for the test, it may be very difficult to defiber
the samples completely, since some of the dried pulp is very tenaciously bonded.
Then the same difficulty may be encountered in the
hypo (or Kappa) test, as with the shives in poorly defibered pulp.
To test this, a series of hypo number tests were run on wet pulp,
never dried, prepared at 300, 600, and 900 PFI revolutions (Table 9).
The first three values are essentially equal, but the last value, 32. 86,
is much higher. Since this sample weight was much higher, it
42
appeared that sample weight may affect the hypo test. The standard
method does not specify a certain amount of pulp, but suggests ranges
of sample weights for different grades of pulp.
Table 9. Hypo number vs. beating revolution (PFI).
Cook no.
Revolution
Sample weight (o. d. g )
Hypo no.
300
0. 483
30. 30
600
0. 277
30. 50
900
0. 236
30. 69
900
0. 420
32, 86
27
27
Note: Wet pulps (wet samples) were used.
Table 9-1. Hypo number vs. beating revolution ( PFI).
Cook no.
27
Revolution
Sample weight (o. d. g)
Hypo no.
300
0.483
30,30
600
0.502
31.66
900
0.420
32.86
Note: Wet pulps (wet samples) were used.
Table 9-1 presents the hypo numbers (at substantially equal
sample weight) for pulps refined for 300, 600, and 900 revolutions
in the PFI mill, and the hypo number is nearly linear with PFI revolutions.
The work was not pursued further, due to some of the discrepancies found in the test procedure, but the following recommendations
43
are made for future work with semi-chemical pulps:
Use a constant amount (dry basis) of wet, never dried pulp for
testing.
Defiber the pulp completely to a constant degree, either mea-
sured by the amount of refining (as in the PFI mill), or by
refining to a constant freeness.
Chip Disintegration and Pulp Refining
Clearance Determination
Control cook no's 18 and 2 were used for determining the Bauer
plate clearance necessary to give a defiberated pulp freeness level of
650-700 ml CSF. The disintegration data are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Disintegration data. (Bauer refiner.
Cook no.
Plate clearance,
mils
Note:
Output freeness,
ml. CSF
18
20
640
18
30
743
18
40
759
8
25
677
Power consumption,
hp-clay/ o. d. ton
average
28. 8
24.2
Single pass.
Steam at throat screw.
Refining speed. 1, 755 rpm.
Stock at room temperature 70°F.
Constant water flow, 1 gal/min.
Based on this work, a Bauer plate clearance of 25 mils was
selected for disintegration of the remaining batches of cooked chips.
44
Power Consumption and Initial Freeness
The importance of refiner clearance to the drainage properties
of the pulp was demonstrated when smaller clearances were inadvertently used to refine cook no. 's 17, 21, and 29. The pulps obtained
had low freenesses, and the power consumptions were higher than
average (Table 11).
Table 11. Power consumption.
Cook no.
Output freeness,
Power consumption,
ml. CSF
hp - day/o.d. ton
745
26.3
8
677
25.3
17
512
76.7
18
743
28.8
21
626
42.6
29
701
57.5
Note: Control cooks only.
The initial freeness of the pulp following the Bauer refiner is
a measure of the amount of disintegration work done by the Bauer
refiner. In order to find out the effect of disintegration work on pulp
properties, initial freeness was sometimes treated as an independent
varia.lbe along with the cooking variables in the multiple regression
analysis.
Linear regression analysis of the power consumption vs. initial
45
freeness suggests good correlation
(R2=0.
62, F=45.66, significance
level = 0. 01, sign of B = (-) ) (Appendix Table 1).
PFI Refiner
It was necessary to establish, by trial and error, the proper
number of revolutions needed to refine the various pulps to 200 ml
CSF or below.
Control cooks no. 's 8 and 29 were used to determine
the PFI revolutions, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Refining data. (PFI mill)
Cook no.
Input pulp freeness,
ml. CSF
677
29
701
PFI
revolution
Output pulp freeness,
ml. CSF
1,000
677
515
359
195
0
300
650
0
701
300
650
604
1,000
210
333
Since the freenesses at 1, 000 revolutions, 195 and 210 ml CSF,
were on target,. four beating intervals of 0, 300, 650 and 1, 000 revo-
lutions, were chosen for further refining experiments.
46
Pulp Quality
Introduction
Normal production specifications call for a commercial grade
corrugating medium with a bulk of 1. 8 cc/gm (26 lb/1, 000 sq ft basis
weight and a caliper of 9 mils (0. 009 in)). In this project pulps with
freenesses of 200 ml CSF or below were needed to meet this require-
ment, and they required 1, 000 or more PFI revolutions to attain this
freeness level.
Since nearly all paper properties are functions of the basic sheet
density (or its reciprocal, bulk) which in turn is a function of the
amount of refining, the strength properties of the 30 different pulps
were compared on three separate bases:
Constant bulk (1. 8 cc/gm).
Constant freeness (200 ml CSF).
Constant PFI revolutions (1 000 revolutions).
They could be compared at other levels (such as 600 and 400 ml
CSF for constant freeness) but the levels given above are the closest
to the values of pulp properties and process variables that are consistent with the production specifications already given.
The correlation of the ha,ndsheet properties to the independent
cooking variables, the effect of each independent variable on hand-
sheet properties, and the maximized handsheet strength properties
47
are given in Tables 13, 14, and Appendix Tables 3, 4, 5, and
Concora Strength
Concora strength, as expressed in lbs/10 flutes, is one of the
most important pulp properties of corrugating medium.
200 ml CSF:
The analysis shows that at the 0. 05 significance level,
only 53% of the Concora strength can be explained by the multiple
regression analysis. From Table 13, the bark content (-), total
alkali (-), and percent sulfidity (+) were significantly correlated
to the Concora strength at the 0. 05 level.
The simple linear regression table (Appendix Table
1)
indicates that at the 0. 01 significance level, PFI revolutions
are related to the Concora strength with R2 = 0. 4.
1, 000 PFI revolutions level:
The F value analysis indicates that none of the cooking
variables had a. significant effect on the Concora strengths
(R2=0. 56, not significant).
The predicted maximum value of 86 lb/10 flutes was
obtained at exactly the same conditions as in 200 ml CSF level.
With the addition of initial freeness as one of the inde-
pendent variables, the R2 value increases from 0. 56 to 0. 75,
indicating that the Con.cora strength is influenced by the initial
Table 13. Multiple regression of cooking variables to Concurs stren
F value
d. f.
Variables
200 ml CSF
First order terms
Second order terms
Lack of fit
0.66
3.43 (O. 10)
5
7.61
1.31
2.61
15
5. 12
0.59
3. 76
4
17.52
1.75
11. 18
2
0. 533
Error (mean square)
T. A.
%
Bark
1. 8 Bulk
4. 34 (0.10)(a)
20
Total terms
1,000 Revs.
5
7.10
0.560
29.4
0. 579
15.8
0 Revs.
0.16
0.17
0.406
7. 35
4. 69 (0. 10)
0.66
4. 34 (0. 10)
0.16
5. 48 (0. 05)
0.73
4. 64 (0. 10)
0.21
Chip size
n
3. 05 (0.25)
0.53
5. 51 (0. 05)
0.09
Sulfidity
%
6.48 (0.05)
0.69
7.03 (0. 025)
0.13
Temperature
°C
3. 36 (0.10)
0.90
5. 38 (0.05)
0.08
Note: in "-", the value was less than 0.
(a), significance level.
49
freeness of the pulp (1. e. , amount of Bauer refiner work).
(3)
1. 8 Bulk level:
Table 13 indicates that the sulfidity (-) is the most important individual cooking variable, at the 0. 025 significance level,
chip size (+) and temperature (-) also contributed significantly
to the Concora strength at the 0. 05 significance level.
Total
alkali and bark content also affected the Concora strength.
As opposed to the results of the 200 ml CSF and 1, 000
PFI revolutions levels, the maximum value conditions show
that Lower sulfidity and larger chip size gives the maximum
Concora strength value of 80 lb/10 flutes.
Again, the simple linear regression table (Appendix
Table 1) indicates that at the 0. 01 significance level, the PFI
revolutions are related to the Concora strength with R2 = 0. 56,
The Concora test is not a simple test, with many chances for
experimental errors. Variations in handsheet preparation, in fluting
or corrugating produces (pressure and temperature), and in final
assembly and testing of the samples can result in substantial devia-
tions of the final test results. This may be a partial explanation of
the lack of correlation between Concora and other variables.
50
Tensile Strength
200 ml CSF
The tensile strength is highly correlated to the first and
second order terms of the cooking variables (R2=0. 922), at the
0. 025 significance level (F=7. 56).
In the full regression equation, the total alkali (+) is the
most important variable (F=15. 9, at the 0. 005 significance
level), and chip size (-) and sulfidity (+) are also significantly
correlated to the tensile strength at the 0. 05 and 0. 10 signifi-
cance level, respectively.
Table 14 shows that at higher total alkali, higher sulfidity,
higher temperature, lower bark content, and small chip size,
the tensile strength has the maximum value.
The predicted maximum value of 18,757 meters is much
too high, but is caused by the multiple regression maximum
value approach. However, the conditions for the predicted
maximum values can be treated as guidelines to obtain the
maximum practical level of the particular property.
1,000 PFI revolutions
The multiple regression analysis indicates that the tensile
strength is highly related to the cooking variables, with the R2
equal to 0.857. The total alkali (+) is the most important
Table 14. Predicted maximum value of pulp properties.
Pulp Properties
Concora strength
200 ml CSF
1,000 revs.
1.8 Bulk
0 revs.
200 ml CSF
Breaking length
1,000 revs.
1.8 Bulk
0 revs.
X(1 )
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
-2
-2
-2
-2
+2
+2
-2
-2
100.4
86.4
+2
+2
-1
-1
0
-2
+1
-2
-2
+2
(-2
0
0
0
0
0
82,0
80.0
15.3
+2
+2
-1
+2
-2
18, 757. 9
(+2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
+2
+2
+2)**
16, 350.0
+2
+2
+2
17, 763. 5
21, 048. 3
6, 548. 3
0
0
0
0
0
+2
+2
+2
200 ml CSF
1,000 revs.
Burst factor
+2
+2
+2
1.8 Bulk
0 revs.
0
(
+2
+2
+2
0
+2
-2
0
X(2) = bark content %.
X(1) = total alkali %.
X(5) = temperature °C.
X(4) = sulfidity %.
*The next higher value of Concora strength at 1. 8 bulk.
**The next higher value of Breaking length at 200 ml CSF.
4**The next higher value of Burst factor at 1.8 bulk.
Note:
Predicted maximum value,
Maximum value conditions
Level
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
-2)*
-2
-2
0
0\
) **)
_2J
+2
0
X(3) = chip size ".
43,24
41.40
51.20
49.00
49. 00
47.00
10. 00
52
variable in the full regression equation, at the 0. 05 significance
level.
Table 14 indicates that higher total alkali, higher sulfidity,
higher temperature, lower bark content, and small chip size
(the same conditions as in 200 ml CSF level) produce the maxi-
mum tensile strength. Again, the maximum predicted maximum
value is somewhere beyond the normal range of tensile strengths.
With the addition of initial freeness as one of the inde-
pendent variables, the R2 value increases from 0. 857 to 0. 926,
indicating that the tensile strength is influenced by the initial
freeness of the pulp (i. e, amount of Bauer refiner work).
1. 8 Bulk
Table 15 shows that the total alkali (+) is the most important variable, at the 0. 05 significance level.
Chip size (-) and
sulfidity (+) also have some effect on the tensile strength.
Table 14 gives the same maximum value conditions as
for the 200 ml CSF and 1, 000 PFI revolutions levels. Once
again the predicted maximum value is beyond the practical
range.
0 PFI revolutions
Eighty-four percent of the variation of tensile strength
of the unbeaten pulp can be explained by the multiple regression
analysis (F=1. 8, not significant).
The analysis reveals that
53
total alkali has a significant effect on tensile strength, at the
0. 10 significance level.
Table 14 indicates exactly the same conditions for maxi-
mum tensile strength as those for the 200 ml CSF, 1, 000 PFI
revolutions, 1. 8 Bulk, analysis, with a maximum tensile
strength of 6, 550 meters. This is a reasonable value.
In all cases (ZOO ml CSF, 1, 000 PFI revolutions, 1. 8 Bulk, and
PFI revolutions), the independent pulping variables show the same
type of influence on the tensile strengths of the pulps, lower bark
content and lower yield both are important in promoting high tensile
strength, and the low yield can be obtained in a variety of ways of
adjusting the pulping conditions.
Bursting Strength
(1) 200 ml CSF
The high R2 value (Table 16) indicates that 95 percent of
the bursting strength can be explained by the first and second
order terms of cooking variables, at the 0. 05 significance level.
The analysis shows that both total alkali (+) and sulfidity (+) are
the most important variables in the full regression equation, at
the 0. 01 a. ncl 0. 05 significance levels, respectively.
Table 14 shows that at higher total alkali, higher sulfidity,
lower temperature, medium chip size, and medium bark
Table 15. Multiple regression of cooking variables to Breaking length.
Variables
200 ml CSF
F value
1,000 Revs.
7..56 (0.025)(a)
5
d. f.
Total terms
1.8 Bulk
0 Revs.
2.40 (0.25)
2.40 (0.25)
1.82
0.67
0.36
0.65
0.93
15
4.50
1.43
1.47
1.36
4
1.32
0.857
0.840
0.831
20
First order terms
Second order terms
Lack of fit
2
0.922
5
Error (mean square) x 10
5
6.78
29.9
4.63
4,, 98 (0.05)
4.94 (0.10)
3.48 (0.10)
23.5
T. A.
%
15.90 (0.005)
Bark
%
3.06 (0.10)
0.96
0.60
1.35
Chip size
If
5.92 (0.05)
2.14 (0.25)
3.08 (0.25)
1.81
Sulficlity
%
4.86 (0.10)
1.92 (0.25)
1.98 (0.25)
1.28
Temperature
oC
3.81 (0.10)
1.01
0.59
0.71
Note: in 'L.", the value was less than 0.1.
(a), significance level.
Table 16. Multiple regression of cooking variables to Burst factor.
d. f.
Variables
200 nil CSF
20
Total terms
First order terms
Second order terms
Lack of fit
T. A.
%
Bark
%
Chip size
71.39 (0.005)
1.8 Bulk
0 Revs.
9.01 (0.025)
1.13
5
4.12
2.67
3.28
1.03
15
2.01
3.33
2.65
0.88
4
1.12
16.99
2.86
2
Error ( mean square)
9.54(0.025)(a)
F value
1,000 Revs.
5
0.953
0.954
0.840
0.831
6.17
9.10
8.00
4.36
1.85
1.61
19.1310.005)
13.42 (0.01)
1.62
1.85
0.25
1.22
0.42
0.53
0.23
0.76
Sulfidity
%
9.19 (0.025)
6.69 (0.05)
0.44
0.50
Temperature
°C
2.-67 (0.25)
1.93 (0.25)
0.28
0.32
Note: in "-", the value was less than 0.1.
(a), significance level.
56
content, the burst factor has the maximum value of 43 M2/cm2.
This is a reasonable value.
1, 000 PFI revolutions
The bursting strength is highly related to the cooking
variables (R2=0. 954 F=71.4, significant at the 0. 005 level).
The analysis indicates that total alkali (+) and sulfidity (+) are
the most important variables, significant at the 0. 01 and 0. 05
levels, respectively.
The predicted maximum value of 41 M2 /cm is given as
a function of the same conditions as those at the 200 ml CSF
level (high total alkali, high sulfidity, low temperature, medium
chip size, and medium bark content).
1. 8 Bulk
Compared to the 200 ml CSF and 1, 000 PFI revolutions
levels, the bursting strengths at 1. 8 cc/gm bulk level have an
R2
of 0. 84, and F = 9.01 which is significant at the 0. 025 level.
Again, both total alkali (+) and sulfidity (+) are the most impor-
tant variables in the multiple regression analysis, significant
at the 0. 01 and 0. 05 levels, respectively.
Table 14 indicates that either medium chip size and medium temperature, or minimum chip size and maxim.um tempera-
ture produce the maximum bursting strength, with the other
variables constant. Generally those factors are those which
57
produce low yield pulps.
(4) 0 PFI revolutions
The analysis (R2=0. 831, F=1. 1, not significant) indicates
that none of the cooking variables is significantly related to the
bursting strength.
Tearing Strength
The R2 values ranged from 0. 69 at the 1. 8 cc/gm bulk level
to 0.86 at the 0 PFI revolutions level, but the smaller F values
(Table 17) shows that the cooking variables are not significantly cor-
related to the tearing strength.
Table 17 indicates that, at the 1, 000 PFI revolutions level,
both sulfidity (+) and temperature (+) are the most important vari-
ables, significant at the 0. 25 level, but at the 0 PFI revolutions level,
total alkali (+) and bark content (+) turn out to be the most important
variables, both significant at the 0. 25 level.
However, Table 17-1 indicates that the maximum value condi-
tions are identical for all four levels, i. e. , at higher total alkali,
higher sulfidity, higher temperature, higher bark content, and
smaller chip size, the tearing strength has the maximum value.
Stiffness, (M0)
The multiple regression analysis suggests that the significance
Table 17. Multiple regression of cooking variables to Tear factor.
F value
d. f.
Variables
200 ml CSF
Total terms
First order terms
Second order terms
1, 000 Revs.
1.8 Bulk
20
0.90
1.66
0.59
2. 15 (O. 25)(a)
5
0.53
1.27
0.64
0.98
15
0.60
1.83
0.56
1.43
--
4
Lack of fit
2
0 Revs.
0.729
0.833
0.687
0,863
Error ( mean square) x io2
4.77
2.82
1.36
4.39
T. A.
0.16
0.94
0.29
2. 89 (0. 25)
Bark
0.27
0.74
0.72
2.04 (0. 25)
Chip size
0.25
0.90
0.38
1.10
Sullidity
1.36
2. 32 ( 0.25)
0,62
0.82
0.20
2. 18 ( 0, 25)
0,80
0.89
Temperature
Note:
"
oC
value less than 0. 1.
( a), significance level.
Table 17-1. Predicted maximum value of pulp properties.
Pulp Properties
Tear factor
Stiffness, MOE
Bulk
Freeness, ml CSF
PFI revolutions
100 x log revs.
Predicted maximum value,
Maximum value conditions
Level
X(1)
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
200 ml CSF
1,000 revs.
1.8 Bulk
0 revs.
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
-1
-1
+2
+2
+2
+2
234
281
+2
-1
+2
386
0
-1
+2
+2
+2
0
177
200 ml CSF
1,000 revs.
+2
+2
+2
+2
-2
-2
-2
-2
+1
+2
+2
0
(+2
-2
0 revs.
+2
-2
-1
-1
+2
+2
+2
+2
-2
-2
-2
-2
700, 395
+1
200 ml CSF
1,000 revs.
0 revs.
+2
+2
+2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
+2
+2
1,000 revs.
1.8 Bulk
0 revs.
+2
+2
0
-2
-2
644
-2
+1
+1
+2
+2
793
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
948
200 ml CSF
1.8 Bulk
-2
-2
-2
-2
+1
+1
-2
-2
-2
2,528
1.8 Bulk
+2
+1
0
-2
-2)
-2
-2
-2
+2
663,834
505,603
486,000
498,000
152,178
0.91
1.17
6.11
814
60
of correlation between cooking conditions and stiffness is minimal
for three out of four bases of comparison. Only at the 1. 8 cc/gm
bulk level (R2=0. 63, F=2. 19 significant at the 0. 25 level) is there
any reasonable degree of correlation.
Table 18 indicates that at the 1. 8 cc/gm bulk level, sulfidity (+),
total alkali (+), and bark content (-) are significant at the 0. 25 level.
The maximum value conditions indicates that, at lower freeness
levels, if other cooking conditions are kept constant, pulp from large
chips has higher stiffness than pulp from small chips. Otherwise, at
the higher freeness level pulp from small chips has the higher value.
Freeness, Bulk, and PFI Revolutions
Freeness (ml CSF) is calculated at specific levels of bulk and
beating revolutions; bulk (c /g ) is calculated at specific levels of
freeness and beating revolutions; and the number of beating revolu-
tions (in PFI mill) is calculated at specific levels of freeness and
For each of the three properties independently, Tables 19, 20,
bulk.
and 21 show that the cooking variables have no significant effect on
these properties (low F value), and none of the individual cooking
variables has a significant effect on both freeness and bulk, at all
levels.
Tables 17-1 and 21 indicates that at the 1. 8 cc/gm bulk level,
total alkali (-) and sulfidity (-) significantly affect the PFI revolutions,
Table 18. Multiple regression of cooking variables to Stiffness (MOE).
d.
Variables
200 ml CSF
Total terms
First order terms
Second order terms
F value
1,000 Revs.
1.09
0.83
2. 19 (0.25)(a)
0.73
5
0. 81
0.48
0. 97
0. 85
15
0.79
0. 54
1.77
0.72
5. 18
0.868
R2
Error ( mean square) x 108
0 Revs.
20
4
Lack of fit
1. 8 Bulk
5
29.1
0.732
31. 3
0. 630
0.734
8.59
6.55
_
T. A.
Bark
%
Chip size
0.95
0.79
1.50
1.48
1. 15
1. 09
1. 97 (0. 25)
1. 03
0.73
0.48
1. 67
1. 25
Sulfidity
%
1.28
1.04
2. 46 (O. 25)
0.91
Temperature
oC
0.88
0.63
2. 31 (0. 25)
0.96
Note:
in places of 1,-", the value was less than 0. 1.
(a),Significance level.
Table 19. Multiple regression of cooking variables to Freeness, ml CSF.
F value
d. f.
Variables
200 ml CSF
Total terms
First order terms
Second order terms
1, 000 Revs.
1. 8 Bulk
0 Revs.
0.14
20
0.50
1.17
5
1.12
0.97
15
5.93
1.15
0.16
0.577
0.737
0. 734
4
Lack of fit
2
Error (mean square) x 10
3
5.81
10.6
7.51
TA.
0.36
1.33
0. 11
Bark
0.65
0.92
0.21
Chip size
0.41
1.75
0.13
Sulfidity
0.92
0.87
0.05
2.76
0.S1
0.12
Temperature
oC
Note: "-" value less than O. 1.
Table 20. Multiple regression of cooking variables to 3u1k.
d. f.
Variables
200 ml CSF
1,000 Revs.
F value
1.8 Bulk
0 Revs.
20
0.48
0. 53
0.83
5
0. 39
0. 54
0.87
15
0.45
0.47
0.70
0.653
0.674
O. 732
Error (mean square) 10-2
8.68
6.98
T. A.
%
0.59
0.45
0.91
Bark
%
0. 39
0.48
0.78
0. 24
0. 28'
1.10
Total terms
First order terms
Second order terms
Lack of fit
4
2
Chip size
26. 2
Sulfidity
%
0. 33
0. 64
0.37
Temperature
°C
0. 62
0. 62
0.99
Note: 'Li, value less than 0. 1.
Table 21. Multiple regression of cooking variables to PFI revs.
Variables
d. f.
200 ml CSF
Total terms
First order terms
Second order terms
Lack of fit
20
0.46
2.20#
5
0.98
3.78#
15
0.51
4
0.71
3.03#
0.52
0,720#
2
Error mean sware x 10
3
F value
1.8 Bulk
1,000 Revs.
5
107.0
--
2.29#
2.01#
T. A.
0.16
2.01#( 0.25)(a)
Bark
0.27
0.76#
Chip size
0.25
1.51#
Sulfidity
1.35
3.52# ( 0.10)
0.20
0.96#
Temperature
Oc
Note: "#" at log revs. x 100 level
(a), significance level.
0 Revs.
65
at the 0. 25 and 0. 10 levels, respectively.
Table 17-1 shows a trend that the pulps with high yield need
more refining work to reach the same freeness level than pulps with
lower yield. It also appears that pulp at the 1. 8 cc/gm level is at a
lower freenesii level than pulp beaten with 1,000 PFI revolutions.
Stiffness and Concora Strength
The flat crush test of corrugating medium (Concora strength)
is time-consuming and results are subject to numerous operating
errors, since it is dependent not only on the sample of corrugating
medium but also on the quality of adhesive tape used and the condition
of the corrugator, to name a few factors. Moreover, the skill of the
operator very significantly affects the strength of the corrugated
medium.
If a simpler and more precise test could be developed for predicting corrugating medium performance, it might be a worthwhile
contribution to industrial practice.
Theoretically, stiffness (MOE) and flat crush tests are measuring the same property of paper, namely rigidity. The flat crush test
measures the resistance of a fluted paper structure to a load applied
normal to the flutes, but the Taber machine measures the stiffness
(MOE) of a flat sheet ]of paper by measuring the resistance of the
sheet to a bending stress. It is a simple, rapid test using a device
66
that is readily calibrated and reasonably foul proof, and thus meets
some of the criteria for a good test method.
A linear regression analysis was run for each cook, using the
M0E's (X's) and Concora strengths (Y's) at the 0, 333, 666, and
1,000 revolutions PFI beating intervals, with good results. The
average R2 for the 30 cooks was 0.90, with 0. 99 as the highest and
0.71 as the lowest. Pooling all the data (120 sets = 30 cooks x 4
intervals per cook) in one regression, the overall R2 = 0. 74, with
an F = 335, significant at the 0. 001 level.
These calculations show excellent correlation between the two
tests overall
Whether the Taber stiffness test (for MOE) could be
used commercially to supplement the Concora test is not known, but
it appears to be a good possibility.
Comparison of Different Semi-Chemical Pulps
GLSC and NSSC Softwood
The comparison of GLSC and NSSC softwood corrugating medium
is shown in Table 22.
GLSC and NSSC Hardwood
The comparison of GLSC and NSSC hardwood corrugating med-
ium is shown in Table 23.
Table 22. Comparison of GLSC and NSSC softwood corrugating medium-handsheet data.
Douglas-fir
Georgia pine*
Cooking liquor
100% GL
Total alkali %
Yield, %
17.2
72. 8
Burst factor, (its,42ern2)
500
49
Tear factor, (din /sheet)
183
Freeness, ml CSF
Breaking length, (meter)
Concora, (lb/10 flutes)
*
**
*4044
**4c*
100% NS**
6.0
6.0
77. 3
72. 3
400
100% GL ****
60°/NS + 40% GL***
400
SrA 6.0
400
17
---
123
4, 761
5, 520
5, 000
4, 670
---
51
39
36
tE-re to.0
70. 3
73. 5
200
20
96
5, 372
48
400
24
145
5, 739
39
Data from Charbonnier, Ruston, and Schwalbe (1974).
Data from Bublitz (1973), unpublished private data, Forestry Research Laboratory, Oregon State University.
Data from Bublitz (1973); Blended cooking liquor with 60% neutral sulfite liquor and 40% kraft green liquor.
Each value is average of 7 sample values, under similar cooking conditions.
Comments
The chemical charge for GLSC Douglas-fir chips was substantially less than that used with Georgia pine to reach the same yield level.
Under similar pulping conditions, kraft green liquor is a faster pulping material than neutral sulfite pink liquor (Bublitz (1973)). The
yields of Douglas-fir GLSCpulps are lower than those of NSSC Douglas - fir pulps.
At the 400 ml CSF level, the Concora crush strength of GLSC Douglas-fir corrugating medium is lower than that of NSSC Douglas-fir
corrugating medium.
On the same yield basis, GLSC Douglas-fir pulp has lower tearing and bursting strength than Georgia pine GLSC pulps.
Tensile strengths of the GLSC Douglas-fir pulp tend to increase with decreasing yield, and are about the same or slightly higher than those
of GLSC Georgia pulps..
Table 23. Comparison of GLSC and NSSC hardwood corrugating medium - handsheet data.
Midwestern (3)
Western oak (1) Midwestern (Z)
hardwood
90% oak + 10% other
100% NS
60%
NS
+
40%
100%
GL
100%
NS
Cooking liquor
Total alkali %
Yield %
Freeness, ml CSF
Breaking length, (meter)
Burst factor, (m2/ cm2 )
Concora strength, (11)/10 flutes)
8.0
12.0
66. 0
70. 8
400
3,730
3, 839
65
21
51
300
16.0
70.8
300
3, 840
24
50
r
Douglas-fir (4)
100% GL
8.9
43149 6.0
73.5
76. 8
300
68
200
4, 670
20
48
.71.4."/ 1-214 t 47, 0
70. 3
300
5,021
17
42
300
6, 308
26
43
Pitre. 12,
69. 9
300
5, 032
24
42
Data from Bublitz (1974).
Data from Battan, Ahlquist and Snyder (1975.).
Data from Dawson (1974).
Each value is average of 7 sample values, under similar cooking conditions.
Blended cooking liquor of 40% green liquor and 60% neutral sulfite pink liquor.
Blended cooking liquor of 60% green liquor and 40% neutral sulfite pink liquor.
Comments
At the 400 ml CSF level, GLSC Douglas-fir pulp has lower Concora strength than GLSC and NSSC hardwood pulps. Generally speaking,
hardwoods have been preferred to softwoods for corrugating medium because of their short fibers, which improve the sheet structure and
stiffness, resulting in higher Concora strength.
Under similar cooking condition, GLSC Douglas-fir pulp has about the same yields as GLSC and blended GLSC + NSSChardwood pulps
(midwestern oak). The pulp yield is substantially higher than that of western oak NSSC pulp.
At equivalent levels of yield, freeness, or chemical charge, GLSC Douglas-fir pulp has higher tensile strength than GLSC and NSSC hardwood
(western and midwestern) pulps.
The bursting strength of GLSC Douglas-fir pulp is about the same as the GLSC hardwood pulp bursting strength.
Since the Concora strength of Douglas-fir pulp tends to increase with increasing refining work, the GLSC Douglas-fir Concora strength at 200
ml CSF is close to that of the GLSC hardwood pulp at 400 ml CSF level.
Ch
00
69
SUMMARY
Douglas-fir chips from Oregon were pulped with kraft green
liquor to produce semi-chemical pulps for corrugating medium. The
pulps had an average yield of 71% and strength properties marginally
suitable for the manufacture of corrugating medium.
Five cooking
variables, chemical charge, bark content, chip size, sulfidity, and
temperature, were investigated to study their effects on pulp qualities.
Chemical charge is the most important cooking variable, and as
the chemical charge decreased, the pulp yield rose, the tensile
strength and bursting strength decreased, and the Concora strength
improved.
The temperature does not significantly affect the pulp
yield, but as the temperature decreased, tensile strength decreased
and the Concora strength improved.
The variation of sulfidity also
does not significantly affect the pulp yield, but it has some effect on
the pulp strength. As the sulfidity increased, the stiffness, the tear-
ing, the bursting, the tensile and the Concora strengths improved.
As the bark content decreased, the pulp yield rose, the Concora
strength, the tensile strength, and stiffness (MOE) improved, but the
tearing strength decreased. As the chip size decreased, the tensile
and Concora strengths improved.
For reproducible results of the hypo no. test, a constant amount
of well defiberated, never-dried pulp should be used.
Further re-
search on this subject seems necessary to find out the relationship
70
between the hypo number and lignin content of GLSC Douglas-fir pulp.
A comparison of Taber stiffness and Concora strength shows a
high correlation between them, and it appears that the Taber stiffness
test could be used commercially to supplant the time-consuming
Concora flat crush strength test.
The effects of disintegrating in the Bauer refiner and refining
in the PFI mill on the GLSC Douglas-fir hands heet properties are
very important. The work dist-.ibution between the Bauer refiner and
the PFI mill to lower the pulp freeness from 700 ml CSF to 200 ml
CSF seems to be an important problem and should be investigated
further.
The Con.cora and tensile strengths are two of the most important
strengths of corrugating medium. The maximum tensile strength of
GLSC Douglas-fir pulp resulted from cooking with high chemical
charge, small chip size, and high sulfidity. Tensile strengths are
negatively correlated to pulp yields, which is normal for semichemical pulps.
The tensile strengths of GLSC Douglas-fir pulps are about the
same as those of NSSC Douglas-fir pulp, and are significantly higher
than those of NSSC oak, GLSC oak, and GLSC Georgia pine pulps.
The Concora strengths of GLSC Douglas-fir corrugating medium
are slightly lower than those of other semi-chemical pulps. This low
strength might be caused by fiber length differences, by chemical
71
composition differences (a- cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, pentosans,
extractives,.
.
.
etc. ), or by a combination of the two. Further re-
search work on this question is recommended.
The chemical charge and temperature levels obtained for maxi-
mum Concora and tensile strengths are opposed to each other, but
high sulfidity and low bark content are preferred for the maxima of
both Concora and tensile strengths.
Three suggestions for using
GLSC Douglas-fir pulp are:
Since the GLSC Douglas-fir corrugating medium has higher
tensile strength than other commercial corrugating medium,
it might be possible to cook the Douglas-fir chips with medium
chemical charge, at medium temperature, and at high sulfidity
to increase the pulp yield and Concora strength but with the
sacrifice of some tensile strength.
Because the Concora strength of the GLSC Douglas fir pulp
increases with increasing refining work, and because the tensile
strength of this pulp has not reached a maximum at 200 ml CSF,
it may be possible to cook the Douglas fir chips with high chem-
ical charge, high temperature, and high sulfidity to give high
tensile and high bursting strength pulp. The Concora strength
of the pulp can be increased with more refining work down to
200 ml CSF to reach the desired level of Concora strength
without hurting the tensile and bursting strengths.
72
In summary, GLSC Douglas-fir pulps axe equivalent or slightly
lower to other commercial semi-chemical pulps in Concora strength,
but equal or slightly superior to them in tensile and bursting strengths.
The pulp has a distinctly darker color than the NSSC pulp, and may
be less bulky.
The deficiency in Concora strength can be overcome
with increased refining, and the slightly higher pulp yield and elimination of the causticizing step make the GLSC process more attractive
for corrugating medium.
73
CONCLUSIONS
In GLSC pulping, the cooking temperature does not strongly
affect the pulp yield, which is in agreement with the conclusions
of Battan et al. (1975).
Total alkali is the most important single variable affecting the
pulp yield, and the two variables are negatively correlated.
The sulfidity of the green liquor, which is normally important
in the kraft mill operation, does not significantly affect the pulp
yield, and this is in agreement with the work of Battan et al.
4,
The pH value of the waste liquor can be used as an indication
of the adequacy and the degree of utilization of the total chem-
ical charge, but it cannot be used as an indication of the pulp
yield or quality.
For reproducible results of the Hypo number test, a constant
amount of well defiberated, never-dried pulp should be used.
The Concora strength is significantly affected by the total
alkali (-), sulfidity (+), and bark content (-).
The Concora strengths of GLSC Douglas-fir corrugating medium
at 400 ml CSF level are lower than those of NSSC hardwood
pulps (western oak, midwestern oak), NSSC Douglas-fir pulps,
and GLSC hardwood pulps at equivalent freeness levels.
The Concora strength increases with increasing refining work,
74
and the Concora strength of GLSC Douglas-fir corrugating
medium at the 200 ml CSF level is very close to that of the
GLSC hardwood corrugating medium (midwestern oak) at 400
ml CSF level.
GLSC Douglas-fir pulps need more refining in order to develop
Concora strengths comparable to other commercial semichemical pulps. This means higher refining costs and lower
pulp freenesses, which may result in slower paper machine
speed.
The tensile strengths of GLSC Douglas fir pulps are about the
same as those of NSSC Douglas-fir pulp, and are significantly
higher than those of NSSC oak, GLSC oak, and GLSC Georgia
pine pulps.
The tensile strength is significantly affected by the total alkali
(+),
chip size (-), and sulfidity (+). Tensile strengths normally
are negatively correlated to pulp yields, but there the tensile
strengths cannot be predicted by pulp yield alone, with any
strong statistical significance.
Tensile strength slowly decreases with increasing pulp yield
up to 72% yield, and then rapidly decreases as the yield in-
creases.
Smaller chips produce pulps with higher tensile and Concora
strengths.
75
The variation of bark content does not significantly affect the
strength properties, but data suggests that lower bark content
chips produce pulps with higher Concora and tensile strengths.
The GLSC Douglas-fir corrugating medium has about the same
burst strength as GLSC hardwood medium, but GLSC Georgia
pine medium has higher tensile and bursting strengths.
The Taber stiffness test is significantly correlated to the
Concora strength of these pulps, and it appears that it could
be used commercially to supplant the Concora test.
The GLSC Douglas-fir pulp has a distinctively darker color than
the NSSC pulp, and they may be less bulky (i. e
than the NSSC pulp.
,
greater denstiy)
This is in agreement with Dawson (1974),
Charbonnier et al. (1974), and Battan et al. ' s work.
In summary GLSC Douglas-fir pulps are equivalent or slightly
lower than other commercial semi-chemical pulps in Concora strength,
but equal or slightly superior to them in tensile and bursting strengths.
The deficiency in Concora strength can be overcome with increased
refining, and the slightly higher pulp yield (average 71%) and elimina-
tion of the causticizing step make the GLSC process more attractive
for corrugating medium.
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Battan, H. R.; Ahlquist, G. S.; and Snyder, E. J. "Green Liquor
Pulping of Southern Oak for Corrugating Medium." Preprint,
TAPPI Alkaline Pulping Conference, (Williamsbrug, Va. ),
1975. pp. 17-31.
Becker, E, D. and Galdwell, H. G. "An Evaluation of NSSC and
Kraft Pulping of Ecuadorian Hardwoods for Corrugating Medium. " TAPPI 57 (12):117-119. 1974.
Bublitz, W. J. and Hull, J. L. "Semi-Chemical Pulping of DouglasFir and Oak for Corrugating Medium." Internal report, Forest
Research Lab. , Oregon State University.
Aug. 26, 1974.
"Semi-Chemical Pulping of Douglas-fir Chips with
Kraft Green Liquor and Neutral Sulfite Pink Liquor." Internal
report, Forest Research Lab., Oregon State University. Dec.
1973.
Casey, J. P. Pulp and Paper. New York: Interscience Publishers;
Inc.
,
1966.
Cederquist, and Defibra.tor. Sernichemical Cooking Liquor use in
Green Liquor. German patent 2, 226,777. DOS Feb. 8, 1973.
6 claims. 11 p.
Charbonnier, H. Y.; Ruston, J. D.; and Schwalbe, H. C. "SemiChemical Pulping of Pine with Green Liquor." TAPPI 57 (12):
108-112.
1974.
Chidester, G. H. ; Keller, E. L. ; and Sanyer, N. "Semichemical
and Chemirncehanical Pulping." in Pulp and Paper Manufacture,
Vol. I. Edited by Ronald G. McDonald. New York: McGrawHill Book Co.
1969.
Clayton, D. W. "The Chemistry of Alkaline Pulping. "in Pulp and
Paper Manufacture, Vol. I. Edited by Ronald G. McDonald.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1969.
Cochran, W. F., and Cox, G. M. Experimental Design. 2nd ed.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957. p. 371.
77
Darmstadt, W. J.; Wangerin, D. D.; and West, P. H. "Combustion
of Black Liquor." in Chemical Recovery in Alkaline Pulping
Processes, pp. 59-79. Edited by R. P. Whitney. Easton, Pa.
Mack Printing Company, 1968.
Dawson, R. L. "A Compariosn of Neutral Sulfite and Green Liquor
Semichernical Pulps in Corrugating Medium." TAPPI 57(12):
113-116.
1974.
Wenzl, Hermann F. J. Kraft Pulping Theory and Practice.
York: Lockwood Publishing Co., Inc., 1967.
New
Lyubavskaya, R. A. et al. USSR patent 300,558. Issued April 7,
1971.
McGovern, J. N. "Semichemical and Chemirnechanical Pulping." in
Pulp and Paper Science and Technology, Vol. I, pp. 281-316.
Edited by C. E. Libby. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
1962.
Pollitzer, Stephanie. "Capacity Survey Sees Annual 1.4% Increase.
Pulp and Paper, 46(12):62-64. 1972.
Robeck, Robert F. "Setting New Records for the Corrugated Box
Industry. " Paper Trade Journal 157(43):36-37. Oct. 22,
1973.
Rydholm, S. A. Pulping Processes. 1st corrected printing. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. 1967. Chap. 8 and 9.
Swartz, J. N. and MacDonald, R. C. "Alkaline Pulping. " in Pulp
and Paper Science and Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 160-239.
Edited by C. E. Libby. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
1962.
Szwarcsztajn, E., et al. Przeglad Papier, 24(1):1-5. (in Polish)
1968.
Vardheirn, S. Pa.pper och Tra. 49(9):613-619. 1967.
Whitney, R. P., ed. Chemical Recovery in Alkaline Pulping Process.
pp, 1-14. TAPPI Monograph Series No. 32. Easton, Pa.:
Mack Printing Company. 1968,
78
Worster, H. E. "Present State of Semichemical Pulping--A Literature Review. " Paper Trade Journal, Aug. 20, 1973, pp. 3l37.
Yerger, H. J. , Jr., "Use of Oxidized Green Liquor in Producing
Corrugating Medium from Northern Hardwoods. " TAPPI 56(9):
74-75.
1973.
APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1.
Level
Simple linear regression of pulp qualities.
Variable
(Y)
(Y)= A +B x(X)
Variable (X)
1,000 PFI revs.
R2
F value
Significance
level
Power consumption
pH of waste liq.
Initial freeness
0.30
0.62
12. 00
45. 70
0. 005
0. 001
Power consumption
Yield
PFI revolutions
PFI revolutions
Burst factor
Concora
12. 35
11. 67
0.005
0.005
Stiffness, MOE
18.70
12.60
0. 005
Bulk
0.31
0.29
0.40
0.31
Concora
Concora
Freeness
Initial CSF
Stiffness, MOE
Bursting strength
8.40
11.02
0.01
33. 72
0.001
17.98
0. 005
0. 005
0. 001
Total solids in waste liq.
200 ml CSF
Sign of
Bulk
Tensile strength
Power consumption
Initial freeness
Concora
Concora
Concora
Freeness, ml CSF
Freeness, ml CSF
0.23
0.28
0.55
0.39
0.31
0.43
12. 30
20. 76
0.005
0. 005
0. 51
29. 00
0.27
0.56
0.41
10.43
Tensile strength
Freeness, ml CSF
Stiffness, MOE
PFI revolutions
Bursting strength
19.22
0.001
0.001
666 PFI revolutions
Concora
Freeness, ml CSF
0.70
66. 89
0. 001
333 PFI revolutions
Concora
Initial freeness
O. 56
35.02
0.001
1.8 cc/gm Bulk
35. 59
0. 001
0. 005
Appendix Table 2. Multiple regression equations relating cooking variables to pulping results.
Cooking variables
T. S. in waste liquor, g
( B( I)
T Value
X(1)
43&5
3.36
X(2)
- 20.9
-0. 16
X( 3)
5.88
pH value in waste liquor x 100
-
Pulping yield cro x 10
T value
B(I)
T value
52.90
0.73
-33.81
-0.77
0. 15
-0. 002
-85.61
-1. 95
B( I)
0.04
-122.80
-1.37
-18.16
-0.33
X(4)
-196.7
-1.51
- 20. 13
-0, 28
62.96
1.43
X(S)
-254.8
-1.96
-122.30
-1.70
4.56
0.10
X(6)
- 54.46
-3.81
- 14.03
-1.77
4. 11
0. 85
X(7)
3. 52
0. 25
3. 16
-0. 40
12. 61
2. 61
X(8)
- 22.57
-0.74
22.26
1.32
7.96
0.78
X(9)
14.63
1.02
- 11.66
-1.47
- 5.50
-1.14
X(10)
25.49
1.78
3. 33
O. 39
4.99
1.03
X(11)
6.43
-0.37
3.71
-0.38
6.61
1.14
X(12)
4.99
0.28
10.75
1.11
0.16
0.02
X(13)
1. 69
-0. 10
11. 92
1. 23
- 9. 52
-1. 61
X( 14)
9. 32
0.43
6. 17
0. 64
- 0, 15
-0. 06
X(15)
1.52
-0.09
6.25
-0.64
3.29
0.49
X(16)
4. 56
0.26
5. 17
0. 53
- O. 89
-0. 15
X(17)
6. 80
0. 39
5. 67
0. 58
- 7. 77
-1. 31
X(18)
21.74
1.01
0.88
0.09
3.66
0.55
X(19)
9. 99
0. 57
5. 38
0. 52
- 4. 71
-0. 80
X.420)
20.05
875.0
O. 11
12. 80
1. 32
- 4. 14
-0. 67
Constant 810)
Note: Y = 8(0) +
1) x B(1) + X(2) x
2) +. . . +X( 20)x 8(20).
1105.9
838.1
Oo
Appendix Table 3. Multiple regression equations relating cooking variables to pulp properties ( 200 n1 CSF level)
Breaking length
T value
Concora strength
T value
Cooking
variables
B(I)
B( I)
Burst factor
T value
X(1)
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
X(9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
X(15)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
-21. 28
-4. 31
1, 229.80
O. 81
19. 60
-23.03
-4.66
0.50
2.68
I. 32
5. 12
4 26
0.58
0.89
-0.41
5.68
1.23
Constant B(0)
166. 65
- 0.92
-0. 15
-19.01
-3.85
766.27
2, 510.70
- 625.93
-14. 53
1.33
-2. 94
740. 24
0. 48
7. 69
1. 67
223.46
175.63
165.39
177.19
1.33
- 0.94
-1.86
-1.05
1. 19
-2. 36
0.46
- 1.45
3.20
2.45
1.53
2.46
5.91
-1.06
0.44
-1.35
-0.88
0.96
1. 76
267. 15
1. 59
- O. 06
-0. 13
2.21
3.32
2. 59
0.94
-4. 04
- 0.04
1. 72
193.92
830. 76
- O. 17
1.33
-0. 26
479. 32
2. 33
2.00
-2.45
1. 35
2.02
1.06
503.99
293.68
289.90
-0.08
-0.49
-1.08
-3.30
2. 56
0. 33
663. 23
708. 27
0.83
- 2.84
0.71
1. 71
0.22
0.72
- 0.92
Note: Y = B(0) + X(1)
1.09
-1. 38
B(1) + X( 2) x B(2) +
-
-
33.05
393.40
-2, 560.7
+ X(20) x B(20).
1.43
1.41
-3. 22
-3. 44
0. 30
0. 67
2.05
- O. 19
0.82
-0. 32
1.34
0. 20
0. 32
0. 33
0. 52
0.16
0.05
1. 91
0. 17
-0.09
-0.28
-43. 58
Tear factor
T value
P(I)
22. 52
- 0.13
0.56
-0,003
74.72
1.48
-20.18
- 6. 20
-0.50
- 4.53
- 1.66
- 6.76
-1.02
3.59
0.71
3.01
- 3. 12
0.81
-0. 15
-0. 37
-0,71
0. 16
0.64
-0. 57
2.38
-0.02
0.44
- 1.87
-0. 34
1.38
1.88
0.25
4. 50
-0. 82
- 7.99
-1.46
0.78
- O. 12
4. 26
1.42
0. 35
Appendix Table
.
3.
(Continued).
Cooking
variables
MOE
B(i)
X(1)
X( 2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
X(9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
X(15)
N 16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
Constant 8(0)
-
8( I)
T value
0. 32
-
132.39
-0,22
-15,21
-0.28
241. 37
-0.24
-0.77
-
640. 62
-1. 06
0,09
40. 94
0. 75
33.27
-2.10
-0.66
-44.17
0.49
-0.81
-0.17
-0.88
1, 754. 60
496.01
48. 34
93. 31
114.63
65.03
63.19
79.02
190.44
29.78
180.84
31. 32
168. 55
-
Bulk x 100
PFI revolutions
T value
B( I)
324.00
- 954.06
-
T value
91.12
31.13
38.10
211.58
-1,043.30
1.75
0.50
0.44
0.85
0.49
-0.59
0.57
-0.59
493.57
-1, 242. 80
397,96
32.35
62.45
151.23
162.44
47.54
39.-67
1.42
-0.22
-1.34
-0.23
-1.25
0.68
0.23
0.28
-1.57
-
17.57
35.76
39.46
14.43
33.99
32.53
40.68
1.56
4, 100.70
0.49
0. 94
-1.07
2.44
0.71
0,49
0.21
- 9.10
- 5.27
- 3. 89
2.35
3.60
- 5,14
0. 63
- 0.85
-0.44
-0.48
3.62
10.38
-0. 18
- 6. 60
- 1. 63
1.63
0.42
0.40
0.49
-0.02
-0. 65
0.18
0,60
-0.86
0.09
-0.12
0.49
1.41
-0. 90
-0.22
0.22
- 2.35
- 5.35
-0.32
-0.73
5.13
0.70
242.40
Appendix Table 4. Multiple regression equations relating cooking variables to pulp properties. (1, 000 PFI revolutions level)
Cooking
variables
X(1)
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(8)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
X(9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
X(15)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
Constant B(0)
Breaking length
B(1)
T value
Concora strength
T value
8(1)
-14.61
- 6.20
-10.92
-1.45
-0.62
-0.87
11.81
- O. 98
-0. 81
1. 48
0.23
-1.03
1.20
0.86
160. 29
0.51
- 0.48
671.04
0. 18
- 0. 17
- 0. 55
0.08
-0. 22
-0. 73
1.42
0.57
0.21
0.29
- 0.18
- 0. 68
13.47
1.34
612.27
-0.30
0. 57
0.51
1, 735. 20
144. 93
- 252. 82
0.39
- 0.56
0.41
0.98
-0. 39
0.16
-0.50
-0.39
0.73
155.40
- 322.68
1. 49
1. 10
- 876. 99
0.02
1.8
-0.01
-
1. 24
0. 52
1. 11
1.37
0.91
-0. 38
0.82
603.27
396.14
-
292. 80
226. 03
723. 16
0.76
-0.56
- 832.23
- 46. 45
0. 87
1. 89
76.04
0. 64
-1.40
3.00
1.29
0.99
1.66
2.11
-1. 60
-2. 41
0.53
0.70
0.90
0.22
0.61
0.47
1, 491. 20
1,988. SO
3, 191. 10
- 3.03
- 0.43
Burst factor
T value
8(1)
322. 27
-8, 679. 60
-2. 29
1.58
-1.03
0.76
0. 59
-1.89
-2.17
-0. 12
0. 84
16.80
7.22
6.86
9.30
- 0.29
-59.64
- 0. 92
-1.39
-0.78
Tear factor
T value
IX 1)
14.59
0.47
-31.57
59.40
-71.25
-33.46
-1.01
- 3.05
-0. 89
1. 54
-2.29
-1.08
0. 08
2. 25
6.78
8.19
3.32
-0.93
2.40
0.97
5. 14
1. 23
-0. 74
0.10
- 3. 09
0.99
-1.88
1.02
-0.24
0.24
0. 76
0. 27
0. 59
-0. 14
3.76
-0. 39
3. 27
0. 90
0. 78
-0.23
1.22
-0.29
-0. 90
-0. 39
7. 22
7. 64
-1. 72
188.78
1. 82
Appendix Table 4. (Continued)
Cooking
8(I)
X(1)
X(2)
470.47
287.43
- 610.98
1,479.00
838.31
0.92
32,78
39.75
- 31.62
6.33
- 106.97
172.74
24.14
- 143.53
5.60
199.76
69.31
12.67
X( 3)
X(4)
X(5)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
X(9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
X(15)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
Constant 8( 0 )
Freeness, ml CSF
8(I)
T value
MOE x 0,1
T value
variables
0.45
0.28
-0.47
1.43
0.81
0.01
0.29
0.16
-
-0.26
-1.67
0.61
18.61
-1.90
-0.97
- 69.63 - 42.80 -
2.99
0.19
19.11
34.95
1.23
2.80
- 0.67 3.50
5.67
- 1.42
1.35
0.37
1.36
8.73
- 6.87
24.10
0.06
13.61
-0.77
0.17
23.02
4.13
7.99
-1.03
12.11
0.04
2.00
-1.43
0.50
0.09
12.39
9.01
18.50
6.87
22.76
1.24
13. 78
0. 10
-1.52
-
20.86
4.97
36.98
235.91
107.52
268.39
137.29
-0.28
212.04
-2, 231. 70
-
Bulk x 100
T value
8(1)
1, 100. 10
-1.06
1.55
0.88
1.21
0.22
-0.42
-0.64
-0.11
0.65
0.47
1. 35
0.97
0.37 -
-0. 36
1.20
3. 99 7.22
3.73
398. 66
0,43
0,10
0.31
1.42
0.87
0.52
0.13
0.31
1.06
0.26
0.20
0.06
0.20
1.33
1.04
0,20
0.57
0.06
0. 60
1.09
Appendix Table 5. Multiple regression equations relating cooking variables to pulp properties. (1. 8 cc/gm Bulk level)
Cooking
variables
X(1)
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
X(9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
X(15)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
Constant 8(0)
Breaking length
T value
B( I)
Concora strength
T value
8(1)
1. 34
10. 38
1. 59
12. 82
0. 15
2.22
-2,023.90
-0.63
-0.23
2, 005. 00
0.63
0.30
- 1.36
-2.36
-3.01
-112.34
43.37
1.83
4,04
-1.64
0. 27
1.19
1.64
- 2. 32
0.01
-1. 90
4, 97
0. 31
0.02
- 0.86
- 0.05
-1.50
-0.07
-1.49
8,53
4.29
10.87
0.55
1.37
4,50
6.70
9.12
4,00
1.13
0,57
1.18
0.06
0.15
0.49
-0.73
0.99
0.43
0.55
-1.15
0.87
2. 45
1.06
- 3. 62
3.20
2.30
1.00
0.21
3.95
- 1.30
1.61
0.61
0.62
2.15
0.24
1.50
1.12
0.49
- 2.13
0.23
1.49
1.11
0.48
2. 99
- 1. 76
3. 01
1. 77
- 0.50
- 1.14
0.51
1.15
74.49
-0.56
-1.10
15.39
22. 45
- 0.81
- 38.65
- 75.55
0.47
0.12
- 9.90
-16.37
- 1. 99
2.93
0.85
Tear, factor
T value
8(I)
1,511. 30
382.01
5, 342. 40
0.61
1.35
4.52
Burst factor
T value
8(I)
-
105.24
115.51
2. 75
-
72.41
52.25
33.17
-1, 233. 70
780.61
- 208.99
331.86
423.28
- 591 66
-1,016 60
-
168.26
416.75
- 3,797. 10
-0.33
-0.004
-0.21
-0.15
0.08
-2.86
1.81
-0.49
0.77
0.98
-1. 38
-2. 36
-0.39
0.97
4,47
1.74
1.05
0.95
0.67
1.20
2. 22
1.35
-0.96
1.69
1. 35
O. 95
O. 08
0. 11
- O. 30
-0. 43
0.68
-0.96
5, 05
10.,58
-0.42
-0. 60
8.00
- 35. 29
454.47
0. 63
-0, 24
0,54
Appendix Table 5. (Continued))
Cooking
MOE
variables
X(1)
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
B( I)
746. 03
1. 37
0.89
0.41
0.98
-
48.56
278.73
533.03
935.02
75.46
20.96
-
-
X( 9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
T value
-
Freeness, ml, CSF
T value
8(1)
- 40.86
- 27.36
-
247.83
- 305. 51 -
1.72
39.60 -
7.73 1.73 -
134.87
-1.26
-0.35
-1.06
98.76
41.27
-0.69
24. 36
92.05
4.55
100.40
7.52
X( 15)
100 x log revolutions
T value
B(I)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
-
Constant B ( 0)
-1, 166.10
124. 83
72.46
77.17
49.61
- 206.59
35.61 -
1.65
-0. 33
1.26
0.06
-1.37
1.03
-1. 71
1.00
-1.05
0.68
-2.82
33.11
-
6.73 1.81
- 21.62
19.67
17.69
7.75
6.05
14.32
2.77
11.11
1.18
839. 90
0.49
0.33
2.40
3.68
0.48
0.85
0.19
1.84
3.63
0.74
0.16
1.93
1.76
1.58
0.69
0.54
1.28
0.26
0.99
0.11
227.89
219.81
- 219.26
-1.23
-1.18
-0.95
99. 10
173.80
12.25
-0.94
0.56
33.24
5.57
11.23
34.97
31.51
61.51
13.85
8.75
21.37
6.02
19.63
24.01
28.62
5.24
1, 054. SO
0.53
1.63
-0.13
-0.55
1.71
1.26
2.46
-0.55
-0. 35
-0.85
0.24
-0.78
0.96
1.14
-0.21
Appendix Table 6. Multiple regression equations relating cooking variables to pulp properties. (0 PFI revolutions level)
Cooking
variables
X(1)
X(2)
X(3)
X(4)
X(5)
X(6)
X(7)
X(8)
X(9)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X(13)
X(14)
X(15)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
Constant B(0)
8( I)
10. 21
0. 64
10.62
4. 62
0.67
1, 173. 40
2, 06S. 70
0. 23
1, 523.40
9. 29
0.58
7.03
- 1. 19 -
0.44
170. 06
1, 040. 40
- 1.69 - 0.33 -
0.96
0.09
- 1. 19 -
0. 68
- 0.94 - 0.55 -
0.54
0.22
0.43
0.09
0.09
- O. 93 0.20
0. 20
0. 82
0.05 - 0. 30 -
0. 38
0. 02
0, 14
- 0.93 - 0.18 - 0.05 -
0.43
0.08
0.03
-46. 99
-
0.93
1.64
0.97
718.48
467.59
1. 86
64. 28
1. 85
L21
51.83
291. 74
0. 61
0. 61
1. 20
34. 94
6. 60
1.33
0, 76
0. 17
236.05
472.21
0. 13
0.82
B( I)
36.68
0.90
-0.99
-2.55
-1.27
-1.07
-1.85
-0.78
-
-0. 75
- 3. 52
3.64
1.43
-0. 82
-0.72
-0.64
72. 16
-1. 38
6. 33
-1. 21
0.34
3.82
-0.89
17.56
53.48
-1. 03
- S. 93
0.73
-1. 13
172. 80
1.02
67. 22
1. 29
1. 39
7.06
21.09
6.22
-0. 14
-0. 41
0.12
8. 92
1. 43
247.39
4.40
-0.01
-1.68
-1.46
-0.03
13.55
-0.26
- 0.93
0.42
- 0.58
114. 33
0. 67
8. 34
-0. 16
4. 57
0.41.
0. 68
Tear factor
T value
Burst factor x 100
T value
8( I)
Breaking length
T value
Concora strength
T value
B(I)
241.13
62.70
106.46
1.04
79.55
417. 59
272.71
151.60
285. 64
-6, 858. 6
-0.03
-1.74
-0.21
-0.77
-0.01
-0.47
-2.46
-
45. 25
-
78.74
70.60
31.74
30.72
33.19
-
1.61
_
-2, 459. 00
4. 27
- 10.89
- 11.56
-159.54
-0.85
-0.27
1. 70
-0. 27
-0. 18
0.08
-0.11
0. 88
Appendix Table 6. (Continued)
MOE x 0. 1
Cooking
variables
E(I)
X(8)
X(8)
X(10)
X(11)
X(12)
X( 13)
X(14)
X(15)
X(16)
X(17)
X(18)
X(19)
X(20)
Constant 13(0)
-1.26
-0. 16
11.45
0. 65
3. 07
14. 19
-1.24
-0.41
5.41
212.61
5.57
31.23
2.19
254. 03
-O. 49
318.10
286.93
132.65
731.97
850.85
316.54
-0.49
-0.45
92. 95
-O. 15
283.87
141.59
-0.44
0.22
3.77
5.27
2.24
8.77
0.81
0.15
0.48
0.49
0.35
-0.05
0.01
-0.28
-0.61
0.08
433. 381
-O. 68
0.23
340.52
1, 345. 00
-
119.57
- 14.98
- 88.02
38. 11
669. 13
X( 7)
-0.46
-1. 28
-0. 65
4,088. 40
4,942. 50
X(5)
X(6)
T value
-0.65
0.26
-0.42
-0.24
3, 952. 20
X(4)
Bulk x 100
8(I)
73.43
103.90
51.08
2, 370.20
X( 2)
X( 3)
Freeness, ml CSF
T value
3(1)
1.74
0.50
0.67
0.86
1.04
8, 244. 70
X(1)
T value
-26, 092.00
0.02
-1.15
1.33
-0.50
68.06
8.44
8.69
7.65
1.14
0.15
6.11
0.13
1, 039.40
- 82. 39
-142. 76
0. 29
0. 54
1.41
0.21
3. 81
0. 34
- 0.92
-0.07
14. OS
1. 10
1.54
24.22
-0.12
- 23.08
0.55
4.44
-1.81
0.54
0.48
0.04
-0.35
14.96
1. 12
-
6.83
6. 09
0. 24
0.10
-0.41
-0.01
-0.75
-0.87
-1.50
-
924. 47
1.90
89
Appendix Table 7. Original data.
90
COOK
A3B1C253T3
FGL1.
ORIGINAL DATA
YIELD= 79.85
INTERVALS 1
2, 3, 4
:Dania
7.0n
BEAT I NO
719
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
635
26.9
9. 1
BURST 'FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
111. 4
STIFF. (MOE
75875
2. 1
2.4
3. 2
1288
BREAKING LENGTH
233
49.7
2.0
4311
4/4
3974
96). 6
14.9
122.5
20 '580
77.7
94. 7
224381
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
677
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
98.c)
-z.15A
2.1
4000
15. 7
20.4
2. 4
STIFF. 011-3E::1
118. 1
93. 3
210241
227439
667,
CONSTANT BEAT I NG, 333,
CSF
coNcoRA
BULK:
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
28. 1
40. 2
49.?
2.4
2.1
3,388
15. 4
20, 3
= 347. 928
ci
226264
1. 6, 1.8, 2.
4311
77. 7
2. 2 CC/GM
2
3. 7
209
278
348
417
6
51.4
45.1
38.8
5231
4733
4235
3736
27. 4
24.?
21. 9
19. 1
87.3
87.6
92.0
qtc. 4
3.1844E;
X + 557929. 467
288510
258575
998639
2.?
X +-348. 178
F= 5. 451.
CONCORA
=-31.332 X + 107.754
57.
F= 27. 806
0. 933
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 9218. 862
=-2492. 103
F= 136. 448
O. 986
BURST FACTOR
X + 49. 707
0. 983
F=
115. 760
TEAR FACTOR
V
7e.c49;71
F= 86.883
R-SQ. = O. 732
=-13. 912
1000 PF I REVS
97C-1'
2n91P.0
CSF
R-SO. =
4372
23.0
74.?
271130
X + 8. 31.4
R-SQ. = 8.977
R-SQ. =
2.
405
L I N. REGR. -BULK,
4.
LOG BEATING
=-Z 559
51.5
614
19. 9
STIFF. (NOE )
11.364
45
= a 834 X + 48. 343
R-SQ. = 0. 362
STIFF. (. MOE
=-149677. 443
R-S.= 0.983
F=
1..137
F= 118.331
X - MEAN
439
COOK
FGL3A
A3B3C253T3
ORIGINAL DATA,
INTERVALS 1, 2,
STIFF. (MOE
3,
300
647
0
BEAT I NO
CSF
CnNCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
YIELD= 72. 250
745
1000
228
42.8
8. 4
4. 0
22. 4
2. 9
423
32.5
2.7
1005
2454
7:1686
5027
4. 4
11E1. 1
15. 4
176. 4
21. 7
24. 9
128. 8
37112
125657
CONSTANT FREENESS,
148.?
149868
600, 400,
1050
-7q. 0
43. 4
3844
5'7,19
25.
9
.
2712
16.?
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
17a
25. 4
22. 1
fz.
146. 3
13077:7
151700
126.
1.71
167630
333, 667, 1.000 PF
CONSTANT BEAT I NO,
165400
200 ML
691
373
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
STIFF. I:. MOE
4
REVS
414
CSF
CONCORFi
4.
s.7:. 9
BULK
2. 6
2571
3750
16.
173. :3
21. 9
24: 9
147. 7
.128. 8
127C1F;7::
150608
if.:;5400
BREAK I NG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
UN. REGR. -BULK,
LOG BEATING
1. 6,
1. 8,
5. 1
CCFEU
145
2.5
5027
2. q
2. 0,
2. 2
CC/GM
4. 7
4. 7:
3.
141
'N-19
262
51. 6
47. IA
X + 8.547
F= 133.197
R-91 = 0. 985
= 303.294
X +-404. 866
F= 5.083
R-91 = 0.718
CONCORA
F.P1.
=-23.169
X + 97.966
F= 18. 630
R-SQ. = 0. 903
6520
6030
5540
5049
36. 1
33. 4
6
T.?. 9
172. 8
168. 3
163. :3
159. 4
245109
227405
s.0970S
191998
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 10439. 824
=-2450. 154
F= ii 572
R-91 = 0. 853
BURST FACTOR
=-13. 740
X + 58.100
F= 62. 349
R-SQ. = 0. 969
TEAR FACTOR
410
X + 208. 661
R-SQ. = 0.262
STIFF. (mOE)
F= 0.709
=-88518. 922 X + 386739. 492
R-SO. = 0. 999
F= 2623. 837
X - MEAN = 3. 019
YIELD= 72. 620
A3B3C253T1
FGL4
COOK
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
445
BEAT I NG
CONCORA
BULK
BREFIK I NG LENGTH
...;:q.
2. 4
3136
16.7
BURST FACTOR
'TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. ( MOE )
CF
5...1
118. 8
158191
Ric:.5
*7:3. 5
2. 2
4026
92. 1
101. 2
191408
595
677f.
94. 9
24
BULK
2987
15. 6
123. 5
142494
BREAK I l',11.3 LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FFICTOR
ST I FF. <MOE )
REGR. -BULK,
L IN.
425
3457
19. 0
109. 2
4412
24. 3
95. 7
1:37453
1.440Cr9
2:
21
1. 6, 1. 8, 2. 0, 2. 2 CC/GPI
4. 3
3.. 7
928
302
376
450
57. 9
51. fl
5630
5049
4468
7:887
32. 1
5
24. 9
21. 3
6
101. 5
104. 4
107 2
2633:10
237434
211558
185683
X + 10.221
F= 64.394
R-9/ = 0.970
C.cF
= 371.154
R-SQ.
313
f:
3-2
5. 0
LOG BEATING
=-3. 272
RR, i.--;
197578
333, 667, 1000 PF I REVS
CONSTANT BEATING
CONCORFI
1175
48. 7
2. 0
4913
27. 1
X +-366. 244
F= 5.536
a rs5
CONCORA
V =-34.489
X + iUi2O
F= 34.809
R-SO. = 0.946
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 10276.376
4
F= 46.694
=-2904.151
R-SQ. = 0:959
BURST FFtC"TOR
X + 61.076
F= 58. ea
R-9/ = 0.967
V =-18.089
9.
TEAR FFiCTOR
= 14.309
X + 75.736
R-SQ. = 0.245
STIFF. (MOE)
=-129379. 763
R-S= 0.956
F= 0. 649
X + 470317. 993
F= 43.683
- MEAN = 2. 4913
863
2.940
YIELD=
Fi2B2C1S2T4
FGL5
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1, 2, 3.. 4
7:00
BEATING
CsF
717
CONCORA
BULK
3. 2
7.?
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST -FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE
cm..=
19. .1
2.6
1153
2787
5.5
.13. 7
.114. 4
180. 0
55450
125632
3898
21. 4
154. 2
191735
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200
415
769
1042
CONCORA
BULK
21. 8
8
48. 6
-2. 5
3151
2
2.2
4104
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
171. 5
147273
STIFF. (MOE)
CONSTANT
3
195791
205115
21. 4
BEATING, 333, 657,
CSF
CONCORA
r:R9
475
19. 9
2
2.5
BULK:
14. 5
3926
21. 4
177. 5
151. 4
131927
19-2-zo3
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. ( MOE )
L I t-4. REGR.
LOG BEAT I r4G
-BULK, 1. 6,
4. 7
2.1
4578
21. 4
88. 6
134.
95. 6
21;17.4,7n
CSF
BEAT I NO
BREAK I NO LENGTH
1000
231
46. 3
2. 1
4505
21. 4
650
487
27. 3
1000 PF I
REVS
231
4F,.
2.1
4505
21.4
95.6
21716791
1. 8, 2_ 0, 2. 2 CC/GPI
3.0
3.5
4.1
=-2.817 X 4- 9.157
R-50. = 8.915 F= 21.550
161
240
319
7
47.5
41.2
35.0
5915
5297
4678
4060
6
20. 5
CSF
X+-478.685
Y = 394.872
R-SQ.= 8.745
F=
848
CONCORA
53.
=-31.252 X + 103.728
F= 10.129
835
R-SQ. =
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 10861.391
Y =-3091. 5131
R-S
0.996
F= 465.667
BURST FACTOR
-15.777 X + 55.195
F= 111.41
R-50. = 0.982
TEAR FACTOR
= 1.487
R-SQ. = 0.000
134. 7
135. 0
135. 3
275200
24655c:;
217911
17:5.
X + 132.305
F= 0.001
STIFF. ( MOE )
X + 504356.468
=-143222. 624
F= 206.197
R-SQ. = 0.990
X - MEAN =
515
1549267
COOK
FGL6
YIELD= 71. 920
F14B2C354T2
ORIGINAL DATA
94
It-4TERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
121. 8
STIFF. (MOE)
78R-z.R
1000
1-47,Fda
77:7:
A
642
24.0
2.3
1582
.
3.
7. c
199
438
48.
51. 2
-;-17-120
2.1
3715
2.0
5056
20.3
25. 4
A
R7. 7
139. R
j_cif-7..
224152
384710
CONSTANT FREENESS, 60a. 400, 200 ML CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
999
51.1
2.0
5050
706
42.5
2.1
3928
372
BEAT I NO
27.
2.3
3163
21.3
173256
6
9
103.1
249680
87. 8
CONSTANT BEATING, 333, 667, 1000 PFI REVS
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
-BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
427
41.4
2.1
3779
25.8
105.1
231797
:
20. 7
136. lc;
STIFF. (MOE)
6
LIN. REGR.
LOG BEATING
Y=-3.124
2. 2
cr/Gri
8
3.1
155
249
343
61. 1
53..1
45. 1
37. 1
5680
5050
4421
3791
5
29 7
25. 0
913.5
104. 1
109. R
7:0AR12
248904
2.5
X + 9.389
F= 50. 047
R-SQ. = 0. 962
X +-594. 370
= 468. 477
a 752
F= 6.050
CONCORFi
Y =-39. 991
R-SQ.=
2. 0,
1. 8,
4. 4
CSF
R-SQ.=
199
51.2
2.0
5056
33.0
87.7
384710
X + 125. 072
a 911
F= 29.555
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 10714. 707
=-31.46. 943
F= 28.851
R-SQ.= 0.912
BURST FACTOR
=-23. 771.
X + 77.282
R-92. = 0. 967
F= 57. 962
TEAR FACTOR
Cr?.
= 28. 285 X + 47. 576
R-SQ. = 0. 312
F= 0. 906
404627
STIFF. (MOE)
Y =-259539. 179
R-SQ. = 0.773
X + 819890. 088
F= 6.801
X - MEAN =
342
Y I ELD= 71. 890
A2B4C152T2
FG-L7
COOK
ORIGINAL D,ATA, INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
10:710
15.3
2.8
650
433
24.?
2.7
163E:
2267
2535
8. 1
-.1.09. 9
Rci;=,87
89. R
BEATING
CSF
705
CONCORA
BULK:
4.3
729
2. 3
69. 5
31143
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
ST I FF. (. moE)
CONSTANT
659
176
45. 0
2.5
7.7
7.8
La 5
14/CF.65
.
FREENESS.. 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
391
17. 8
695
27. 3
957
43. 1
181712
2301
2510
104. 1
86582
R7. la
7171.
BEAT I NG
CO NC ORA
2.8
BULK
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
7.8
STIFF. (MOE)
CONSTAt- T BEAT I NG..
637
16. 2
CONCORF:
2. 8
BULK
CSF
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
ST I FF. ( moE
7. :3
107. 4
82872
2.7
7.8
108828
8.1
142522
333, 667, 1.000 PF I REV
421
25. 7
2.7
7.7
88.8
176
45. 0
2.5
2535
8.1
68.5
1053.7-:1
LIN. REGR._ -BULK, 1.6.. 1. 8, 2. 0.. 2. 2 CC/Gti
4. 7
4 3
4. n
3. 6
1891
223
265
307
46. 7
43. 5
40. 2
36. 9
3191
317102
9819
11. 6
10. 9
10. 2
97 7
95. 9
94. 0
LOG BEATING
=1 755
.
X + 7. 469
P-SQ.= 0. 999
F.:: 3455. 359
CSF
X +-159. 465
fr' = 212. 242
R-S.= a 4861.889
CONCORFi
=-i6.308 X + 72.818
Fr- 3. 007
= O. 601
BREAKING LENGTH
=948. 560
R-SO. = a
X + 4709. 083
15. 742
7
BURST FACTOR
=3. 4%
X + 17.223
F= 170. 193
R-91 = O. 988
TEAR FACTOR
I? =9. 126
9. 9
X + 112. 251
R-SQ. = O. 141
STIFF. (MOE)
F= O. 323
170213
Y =54087. 619 X + 256753. 264
= 0.884 F= 8.220
X - MEAN = 3. 075
148578
137761
A282C3S2T2
FGL8
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA
INTERVALS 1,
BEAT I NO
2, 3, 4
7..ng
.
762
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
650
513
29.1
2.8
3805
10.7
127.1
113570
642:
S. 6
3. 1
4.
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
116';
2993
3;5
7. 9
:31. 9
2
94561
STIFF. (MOE )
96
YIELD= 75. 120
1171A0
242
45.9
2.6
4R99
12. 7
.i05.5
137001
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 40a. 200 !IL CSF
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
796
416
1054
48.5
36. 1
.:1)5.
2.7
422:2
8.8
STIFF. (MOE )
49:3R
13. 0
1. 6
120. 5
1
100849
123340
102. 2
14c:632
CONSTANT BEATING. 333, 667, 1000 PF I
631
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
118.
STIFF. (.10E)
V=-2.239
C.
3854
2.6
4829
10. 8
12A. 0
105. Fi
114685
1-.Z7001
2.
12. 7
a.
5. 5
5.1
2. 2 CC/G11
4.2
4.6
56
119
182
245
63. 0
58. 3
53.5
48. 8
7008
6511
6013
5516
18. 6
17. 3
1F.;.
14. 7
144. 8
140. 0
212410
196776
REGR. -BULK,
L I N.
LOG BEFiTING
5
45. 9
24. 4
3.1
3071
R. 2
RE'
242
517671
-
1. 6,
1. 8,
2.
X + 9.084
F= 55.205
R-SQ.= 0.965
C:SF
= 316.225
X +-450. 366
F= 6.198
R-SQ.= 0.756
CONCORA
+ 100. 666
F= 15.434
R-99. = 0.885
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 10986. 214
F= 68.562
Y =-2486.443
R-91 = 8.972
BURST FACTOR
=-6.424
X + 28.848
F= 59. 058
R-91 = 0. 967
TEAR FACTOR
089
R-SO.
130. 4
X + 183. 366
= a 577
STIFF. c. MOE
=-78170. 347
R-SO. = 0.999
F=2.733
X + 337483. 016
F= 1409. 221
X - MEAN = 3. 12:2
181142
165508
A383C253T3
FGL9
COOK
YIELD= 71. 310
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
BEATING
CSF
700
515
31. 8
677
14. 3
CONCOF:A
2.7
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
2.
2204
q.
164. 9
100686
ST I FF. (MOE )
4262
21, 1
123.
179741
PI
650
195
45. 1
7::59
42. 5
2.2
4711
25. 1
104. 7
185332
549.1
91. 2
123:673
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
.143
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR. FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
-;:c), 7
2.5
2.2
3182
15. 2
145. 0
138262
4593
5468
109. 5
183863
91. 6
125553
24.0
351
42. 6
2. 2
4748
95.
104.
29.3
195
45.1
5491
29.5
91. 2
122:673
1. 6, 1. 8, a et, 2. 2 CC/GM
REGR. -BULK,
=-4.632
171
182396
STIFF. c. MOE
5. 9
LOG BEATING
2.5
667, 1000 PF I REVS
CONSTANT BEAT I NG,
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
L IN.
989
45. 0
22. 6
4.
X + 13.269
F= 3.958
R-SQ. = 0.664
95
178
262
346
67. 9
59. 4
51. 0
42. 6
7372
6557
5782
5008
40. 2
35. 6
31. 0
26. 4
47. 2
65.
83
246516
214377
CrF
= 418.309
X +-574. 581
F= 0. 658
R-SQ. = 0.248
CONCORFi
Y =-42. 170
+ 115. 352
R-SQ. = 0. 550
F= 2. 447
BREAK I NO LENGTH
=-3873. 113
R-SO. = 0. 461
X + 13528. 579
F= 1. 711
BURST FACTOR
=-23.862 X + 77.104
R-SQ. = 0.452
F= 1.649
TEAR FACTOR
101. 4
= 90. 268 X +-97. 234
F= 1. 848
0. 480
R-SQ. =
278654
STIFF. C. MOE
Y =-168692. 016
R-50. = 0. 897
X + 535761. 449
F= 17. 400
X - MEAN = 2. 417
182r23e4
98
YIELD= 69. 690
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
COOK
A4B2C1S2T2
FGL10
BEATING
300
568
CSF
CONI:ORA
BULK
Da. 8
21. 2
2. 9
9. 9
4510
14.4
143.4
128743
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST 'FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
138.
STIFF. (MOE )
79-4,12
2280
8. 4
CONSTANT FREENESS., 600, 400,
142. 1
17. 8
142. 8
30. 1
81. 5
115668
156567
19)=.084
12. 8
4518
±4.9
143, 3
142. 5
97. 9
132294
167806
1885F7.6
547
- 22.7
2.9
BREAK I NG LEN13TH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
=-2. 048
-BULK, 1.
4. 1
97. 9
97.9
188566
1000 PF I REVS
332
37.6
2.6
5697
19.2
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
7166
200 ML CSF
1.9
7703
3931
CONSTANT BEAT I Na. 333, 667,
L I N. REGR.
LOG BEATING
168161
41::. 9
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
ST I FF. ( moE
19. 2
142. 5
2.7
5355
2. 9
BULK
32.
2. 1
5707
1122
18. 4
44. 4
S'
8
221
STIFF. (MOE)
.1cf.f
561
BEATING
CONCORA
1000
235
/570
44. 4
2.1
7166
27.2
6, 1. 8, 2. 0, 2. 2 CC/GM
3. 7
3.3
2.9
66
162
257
X + 7.412
R-91 = 0.336
F= t813
V = 477.815
X +-792.1
R-SQ. = 0.823
F= 9. 276
CSF
CONCORFi
V =-34. 337 X + la.
R-SQ. = 0.796
63. 4
56. 9
49.
42.8
7640
6755
345
F= 7.826
9409
BREAKING LENGTH
Y =-4423.323
X + 1603. 555
R-SQ. = 0. 727
F= 5. 324
BURST FACTOR
=-1a43 X + 65.685
R-9/ = 8.858 F= 1133
TEAR FACTOR
36.
32. 4
81. 1
90. 9
1510.
110.4
= 48. 690 X + 3. 240
R-91 = a 785 F= 7. 302
243705
STIFF. ( MOE )
X + 405167. 396
Y =-100914. 240
R-Sa = 0. 696 F= 4. 582
'
-
MEAN = 2. 616
183156
-
99
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
YIELD
A383C253T5
FGL11
I NTERVALS 1
70. 500
2, 3, 4
1000
165
4787
99.8
650
360
42.6
2.0
5750
26.8
143. 9
141. 8
124. 6
28. 6
127. 3
81457
178263
259145
233878
300
469
0
666
15.4
32. 8
3. 1
2559
8. 1
48. 9
2.1
7866
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
STIFF. <MOE)
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
25. 4
130. 9
229464
333, 667,
CONSTANT BEAT I NG,
47. 8
2.1
7486
28. 3
126.8
238413
1000 PF I REV S
165
48.9
2.1
7866
28.6
459
351
33. 7
42. 9
4879
2.1
5851
23. 2
140. 2
124. 8
127. 3
257942
23378
185966
STIFF. (MOE)
937
522
39.0
2.1
5396
101
21.2
2.8
3305
13.1
143.2
113890
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
REGR. -BULK,
4.
LOG BEATING
L I N.
1.. 6,
2
26.
1. 8,
Z. 0
2. 2 CC/GM
3.?
3.1
2.6
212
282
353
56.
506
451
39?
8144
7395
6645
5896
32.
28.4
24.8
V=-2.753 X + 8. 612
F= 28i076
R-SQ. = O. 993
141
CSF
= 353. 361
R-SQ.= 8.738
X 4-424. 237
F= 5.487
CONCORR
Y -27.285 X + 99.53?
R-SQ.= 8.889
F= 15.969
BREAKING LENGTH
=-3746.1i4
R-50..
= 8.741
X + 14137. 529
F= 5.726
BURST FACTOR
35. 7
=48.196 X + 64.818
R-SQ.= 8.982
F= 186.649
TEAR FACTOR
123. 0
125. 9
128. 9
131. 8
304150
274224
244299
214373
= 14. 751 X + 99. 375
R-SQ.
O. 577
F= 2. 725
STIFF. (MOE>
=-149627. 636
R-SQ.= 0. 924
X + 543554.079
Fr-. 24. 429
X - MEAN =
100
COOK
FGL12
YIELD= 72. 370
A2B4C321-4
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1, 2.. 3, 4
CF
1000
146
F.5n
300
610-.1...ef.S1
0
BEAT I NG
716
CONCORA
BULK
1171. 7.:
--Z. 0
25
BREFtK I NG LENGTH
1-474;
5. 0
3
7
42. F.
ssRs.f.::
3422
2 9
.
R
22
2. 1
TEAR FACTOR
105. 5
19. 5
114. 7
15. 5
90. 4
3RF,R
15. 7
72: 7
STIFF. ( MOE )
73861
151239
227291
231951
BURST 'FACTOR
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400,
314
912
23. 4
-::::4. 5
41. i
9. 5
2852
9. -::
2. 2
3329
3756
113. 7
15. 1
94. 9
15. 6
77. 2
154293
215379
230781
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAK: I NG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
12. 6
STIFF. (MOE )
200 MI_ CSF
595
CONSTANT BEAT I NG, 333, 667, 1000 PFI REV-'S-
5E
CSF
CONCOR A
BULK
2:
49.
2. 1
3.443
15. 5
15. 7
37.
.9. 5
BREAK I NG LENGTH
4..-0°....1
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
12. 8
112. 4
158482
STIFF. (MOE)
LIN. REGR. -BULK, 1. 6,
5.1
LOG BEATING
=-3.460
89.
r.
227513
1_ 8,
4.4
7:Rfv,R
72.7
231951
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GPI
3.0
3.7
X + 10.595
F= 31.614
R-SQ. = 0. 941
8
70
187
304
59. -.I:
52. 0
44. 8
37. 6
5262
4708
4153
35-99
23. 1
20. 6
18. 0
15. 5
74. 7
81. 1
87. 4
295397
25R701
220605
CSF
= 586.276
R-SQ.
146
351
n
24. 1
X +-985. 592
= a 806
F= 8. 331
CONCORA
=-36. 116
X + 117. 043
F= 42. 842
R-SQ. = 0. 955
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 9696. 784
=-2771. 650
R-SL= 8993
F= 296. 731
BURST FACTOR
=-12. 645
X + 43. 331
R-S. = 0. 986
F= 138. 486
TEAR FACTOR
= 31. 875 X + 17. 319
R-SQ.= 0.463
STIFF. MOE)
Y =488480. 453
R-SQ. = 0. 980
F= 1.722
2:2: 3 6 9 4
X + 635262. 313
F=%493
493
- MEAN = 2. 463
101
C OOK
FGL13
Fi4B4C1S2T4
YIELD= 69. 150
INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
ORIGINAL DATA
738
-z.nia
r.:Pic)
650
CSF
-:'-59
219
CONCORA
7. 7
22. 0
37. .:-..
43. 9
BULF:::
:9
872 -
20
2E
2.5
*)734
13. 5
3718
'7.921
20. 5
TEAR FACTOR
qc). 7::
155. E.:
144. 6
24. 0
120. 9
STIFF. (MOE )
45867
117419
1455;
175447
BEATING
la
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST . FACTOR
4. 3
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
1048
BEAT I NO
313
CONCUR A
22. 5
34. 7
2769
3557
13. 7
155. 4
146. 5
117. 7
118433
140975
179498
44. 8
2.4
BULK
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. if. MOE )
CONSTANT BEAT It4G,
ic.t.
3.73,
657,
24.4
1000 PFI REV-"S
219
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
23. 4
BREAK I MG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
14. 2
154. 8
STIFF. ( MOE )
121-711n2
LIN. REGR. -BULK, 1. 6,
5. 0
LOG BEATING
4:9
e .:s
2.6
779R
20.6
3921
24.0
143. 5
.120. 9
147017
175447
1. 8,
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
4.2
3.8
147
213
61.
51.9
47.1
5806
4954
4528
28.7
26.1
152. 5
148. 1
205863
-I88998
4. 6
X + 8.371
-a896
F= 44. 323
R-SQ. = 0. 957
CCF
= 332.848
X +-519.069
F= 11.631
R-SO. = 0.853
r:ONCORA
Y =-24.085 X + 100.886
R-Sa. = 0. 944 F= 33. 975
BREAK I NO LENGTH
X + 9215. 787
=-2131. 026
R-91 = 0. 997
F= 727. 497
BURST FACTOR
31. 4
34. la
Y =-13.116 X + 54.969
R-91 = 0. 974 F= 75. 436
TEAR FACTOR
=-22.252
X
R-SO. = 8.332
STIFF. (MOE)
161. 4
157.
239593
223728
+ 197.829
F=
0.993
=84324. 842 X + 374512. 440
R-91 = 0. 985 F= 131. 907
X - MEAN = 3. FI05
COOK
A4B4C154T2
FGL14
102
Y I ELD= 68. 470
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1,
2, 3, 4
BEATING
CSF
8
718
308
682
658
416
C 01'1 CORA
11. 8
28. 4
42. 3
2. 9
2. 4
2. 1
9174
2.8
18785
1.000
1R5
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
3471
7178
7. 5
121. 2
140. 3
11.E.:. 5
184.3
STIFF. (MOE )
81799
165654
21r-r4R7
1q727:9
19. 3
31. 2
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSIF
BEATING
CONCORA
304
2R. 5
2.4
7199
19.4
BULK:
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
-14a 0
166141
STIFF. <MOE )
977
48.6
2.1
18688
30.9
IA5.2
190132
674
R
2.1
9285
117.5
210035
CONSTANT BEATING, 333, 667, 1000 PF I REV-"S
csF
405
584
7
42. 6
2. 4
2. 1
CONC:ORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
1'85
2.0
7368
STIFF. (MOE::'
-11;17R5
R
2a1.7-t
138. 2
117. 8
31.2
104.3
-11:::;gc17-1
210332
1q72-:Z9
REGR. -BULK..
L I N.
4.
LOG BEATING
1. 6,
8
1.8..
.
0, 2.2 CC/GM
4.1
3.4
Fsci
162
274
ic.A, 3
57 6
48. 9
4047
12381
10716
42. 1
36. 7
31. 2
108. 4
111. 7
279685
249534
Y =-3. 571 X + 10. 528
F= 23. 084
R-9Q. = 0. 920
CSF
Y
560. 635
R-SQ. = O. 818
X +-847. 285
F= 9. 003
CONCORA
=-43. 482 X + 135. 837
R-SO.= 8.985 F= 128.358
BREAK I NO LENGTH
=-8327. 965
R-SQ. = 0. 984
X + 27371. 703
F= 124. 731
BURST FACTOR
=-27. 329 X + 85. 854
R-SQ.
O. 990
F= 189. 475
TEAR FACTOR
115.
= 16. 528 X + 81. 928
R-S9. = 0.176
F= 0. 428
STIFF. (MOE )
X + 520889. 088
=-150752. 588
R-5Q= 0.955 f= 42.886
-
MEAN = 2. 368
219384
7
A4B2C154T4
FGL15
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA,
103
YIELD= 65. 520
INTERVALS 1.. 2 3, 4
30174
BEAT I NO
lAAA
141
47.?
2.1
650
225
43.7
2.3
9991
112q-z:
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
171. 9
206. 8
132. 4
130. 3
STIFF. (MOE>
84913
162276
189304
27i:4R04
F-;5q
451.
17. 4
36.1
2.6
7865
24.5
3. 1
4071
CONSTANT FREENESS,
600, 400, 200 ML CSF
39
BEATING
CONCORA -
37. fz:
BULK
22. 7.
3. A
BREAK I NO LENGTH
5147
87:45
STIFF. (MOE
14. -1
25.?
190. 0
ilatc.RF;R
168375
CONSTANT BEATING,
333,
667..
22. 1
131. 8
1000 PF I
141
47.7
2.1
11293
221
429
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
754
44.9
2.2
10379
2.6
181. 8
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
7:7. 0
R
2.3
806?
101:7153
199. 7
132. 3
130. 3
164850
191471
234804
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
30. 3
STIFF. (MOE )
REGR. -BULK,
L I N.
LOG BEATING
Y -3. 036
1. 6,
1. 8,
a
O..
2. 2 CC/GM
4. 3
4. 9
X + 9. 782
F= 15.466
R-SO. = 0.885
CSF
RA
187
59. A
5s.. 8
46. 7
13686
12231
10776
-17:5
= 535. 913
X +-992. 049
R-SQ. = O. 990
F=198.736
65.
CONr.OR A
=-38.745 X + 114.302
R-SO. = 0.982 F= 108. 683
15140
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 26778. 804
=-7273. 369
R-91 = 8.998
F= 964.052
BURST FACTOR
44. :3
50.
39.
34. 3
297 X + 92.138
V=-26.297
R-SO. = O. 984
F=
la
516
TEAR FACTOR
Y = 53.169X
R-SO. = 0.401
0. 973
121. 0
131. 6
142. 3
302257
273645
245032
216420
F= 1.338
STIFF. (MOE)
=-1.43062. 046
110. 4
+ 25. 291
X + 531156. 500
F= 73. 432
- MEAN = 2. 540
A4B4C3S4T4
FGL16
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA,
YIELD =-*
68. 970 04
I NT ER'ViRLS 1, 2, 3, 4
650
300
0
1000
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
18. 3
26. 9
1
127. 5
201. 9
166. 1
126. 1
STIFF. (MOE)
54231
149449
205375
213529
711
8.9
3.8
1271
5.1
706
486
21. 8
33. 2
49. 6
2. 9
5
2.
4201
2.3
4974
3428
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600.. 400, 200 ML CSF
27. 3
2.7
3800
22.4
184.?
176395
STIFF. (MOE)
BREAK. I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
R-SQ.
217396
1.000 FFI
22. 9
34. 0
9.8
3502
2.5
4237
299
49.6
2.3
4974
29.1
126.1
213529
198. 5
27. 0
164. 2
154775
205763
1. 6, 1. 8, 2 .0.
REVS
2. 2 CC/GM
4. 6
4.2
3.8
3.4
251
299
347
394
58. 0
53. 3
48. 5
43. 8
6403
5933
5463
4993
39. 8
36. 6
33. 4
2
167. 3
165. 4
163. 5
161. 6
290184
268637
247089
225542
X + 7.824
F= 43. 546
= 8. 956
CSF
X +-ia 434
= 238. 063
R-SQ. =
208990
477
LOG BEATING
Y =-2. 019
30. 1
107. 1
667,
REGR. -BULK,
L I N.
2.2
5341
27. 9
148. 4
33.'3,
19.
STIFF. (MOE)
57. 4
685
CONSTANT BEAT I NG,
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
1166
805
40.5
2.4
4543
469
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
0.645
F= 3.634
CONCORA
Y=-a 752
X + 96.039
R-S= 8.866 F= 12.958
BREAKING LENGTH
V =-2349. 593
X + 18161. 935
R-SQ. = 8. 996
F= 444.269
BURST FACTOR
=-16. 011 X + 65.444
R-SQ. = 8.989
F= 172.215
TEAR FACTOR
V=-9.494 X + 182. 445
R-SQ.= 8.832 F= 0,065
STIFF. (MOE)
=-187737. 834
R-SQ.= 8.989
X + 462565. 811
F= 184.567
X - MEAN = 9. 849
COOK
FGL17
YIELD= 69. 250
Fi3B5C2S3T3
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
300
614
23.5
2.5
3899
15.2
125.7
137600
728
7.9
3.1
763
4.7
90.5
72231
STIFF. (MOE)
CONSTANT FREENESS,
1000
289
37. 0
41. 6
5032
2.3
4660
18. 3
21. 7
9
119. 4
177548
185308
600, 400, 200 ML CSF
792
1167
38. 9
43. 8
2.3
4881
4483
15. 5
124. 5
19. 7
116. 1
122. 1
141653
180702
189001
336
24.9
2.5
4014
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. ( MOE )
650
476
""3. 4
CONSTANT BEATINGS 333, 667, 1000 PF I
467
37.2
15. 5
124. 5
18. 4
114. 2
119. 4
141405
177918
185308
BULK.
BREAK I NG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
L N. REGR. -BULK, 1. 6,
5. 4
LOG BEATING
V -3.442
289
41.6
2.3
4660
601
24.8
2.5
4007
CSF
CONCORA
5014
1. 8,
4.7
21. 7
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
4.0
3.3
X + 10.881
R-SQ.= 0.986
F= 141. 535
141
222
382
62. 3
55.0
40.5
8158
7205
5299
28. 7
214
143. 5
137. 0
124. 0
264731
',39778
CSF
= 402. 181
R-SQ.= 8.737
X +-502. 397
F= 5.595
CONCORA
V =-36. 295 X + 120. 376
R-S. = 8.933 F= 27. 991
BREAKING LENGTH
V=-4765.21.6
X + 15782.150
R-SQ.= O. 980
F=
98.
726
BURST FACTOR
=-18. 059 X + 61.169
R-S. = O. 979
F= 95. 240
TEAR FACTOR
=-32.486 X + 195.488
R-SQ. = O. 727 F= 5. 317
STIFF. ( MOE )
X + 467558. 059
V =-126766. 976
F= 90.275
R-SO. = 8.978
X - MEAN = 2. 559
214024
188671
106
COOK
YIELD
A383C253T3
FGL18
ORIGINAL DATA,
INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
512
300
175
30. 6
40. 9
3. 0
2.6
6508
E:EAT I NO
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
3101
STIFF. (MOE)
71. 180
1000
80
56.3
2.0
8498
26.3
650
149
46.8
2.3
6826
21.4
10. 0
27. 0
146.3
87454
133. 5
105. 0
84. 6
151048
216419
251824
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
3.1
22/1
5.6
149. 6
142. 0
25. 7
134. 5
70848
108589
146330
27. 9
CONSTANT BEFIT I NG, 333, 667,
146
173
CSF
47. 3
41. 5
CONCORA
2. 6
BULK
F.57:8
6905
BREAK: I NO LENGTH
21. 6
26. 4
BURST FACTOR
.1134.
0
130.
8
TEAR FACTOR
218105
157274
STIFF. (MOE)
LIN. REGR. -BULK, 1. 6
4. 7
LOG BEATING
Y =-2. 9%
278
40.1
2.6
6255
100
34.0
2.9
4233
15.6
-78
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF.(M0E)
1. 8,
1000 PF I REV'S
80
56. 3
2.0
8498
84. 6
2.!91824
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
4. 1
3. 5
-140
-56
28
65. 8
60. 7
55. 7
10757
9723
8689
33 7
30. :3
28. 0
61. 3
74. 1
86. 9
326144
291991
257837
X + 9.494
F= 9.488
R-SQ. = 8.825
CST
= 421.916
R-SQ. = O. 858
X 4-815.332
F= 12. 122
CONCORA
=-25. 318 X + 106.318
F=243.889
R-SQ. = 8.992
BREAKING LENGTH
Y =-5168. 317
X + 19Ø25. 934
R-SQ. = 8. 935
F= 28.976
BURST FACTOR
Y =44.297 X + 56.557
R-SQ. = 8.595
F= 2.942
TEAR FACTOR
= 63.989 X +-41. 040
R-SQ.
O. 949
STIFF. (MOE)
F= 37. 131
X + 599371. 254
V =-170766. 955
F= 288.571
R-SQ.= 8.991
X - MEAN = 2. 475
107
COOK
FGL19
fl383C253T3
YIELD= 66. 680
'X
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF.(M0E)
300
659
650
475
1200
170
22. 0
35. 0
48. 7
2.3
2.1
4509
545
0
734
8.1
2.7
2049
7.5
-z893
17.0
135. 6
147. 2
23. 8
112. 0
96126
183652
236433
1. 9
28.3
247500
71. 1
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
4090
785
38.4
2.0
4732
1146
47.4
1.9
5326
19. 2
135. 9
24. 9
101. 9
27. 9
75. 1
200576
239154
246411
412
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
2. 2
BREAK: I NG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (M0E)
333, 667, 1000 PF I
CONSTANT BEAT I NG,
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF.(M0E)
L I N.
-
3952
281
35. 4
43. 7
2.1
4536
2.0
5085
26.?
17. 7
24. 0
143. 9
188F;79
110.?
236768
REGR. -BULK,
LOG BEATING
Y =-4. 269
466
641
1.
4. 8
X + it 631
R-SO.= 0.941
F= 32.138
Y = 672. 879
R-SQ. = 0.744
X 4-994. 1.91
CSF
F= 5.819
CONCORA
Y =-52.197 X +
R-50. = O. 933
61. 6
145.097
F= 27. 668
6760
BREAKING LENGTH
Y =-440t 507
R-SQ. = 0:992
X + 13802. 460
F= 243.530
BURST FACTOR
36.
Y =-27. 946 X + 8t 606
R-SQ. = O. 986
F= 140. 055
TEAR FACTOR
= 75.194 X4-5t562
562
R-SQ. = 8.518
68. 7
F= 2. 151
283612
STIFF. (MOE)
Y =-213207. 317
R-SQ. = O. 988
87:. 8
X + 667384. 732
F= 162. 064
X - MEAN = 2. 235
86.
171
243476
REVS
FGL20
COOK
.
Fi2B2C154T2
108
YIELD= 73. 240
NTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
OR 101 NAL DATA
650
300
0
BEATING
397
593:
678
CSF
50.2
24.1
10. 7
CONCORA
2.2
2.3
3. 1
BULK
3490
919
2881
BREAKING LENGTH
±9.5
±3.7
5. 4
BURST FACTOR
104. 8
66. 6
99. 4
TEAR FACTOR
273594
175642
65764
STIFF. (MOE)
X.
1000
167
64.9
2.1
3580
20. 0
85.0
266130
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
275
645
950
23. 0
49. 8
6.-,. 8
2. 3
2719
2.2
3480
2.1
3567
13. 0
69. 3
19. 4
104. 3
20. 0
87. 8
166593
272095
267201
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. ( MOE )
CONSTANT BEATINGS 333, 667, 1000 PF I REV'S
574
26.6
CSF
CONCORR
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
2. 2
3494
19.5
3580
20.8
85.
273239
266:130
70. 2
L N. REGR. -BULK,
4
LOG BEATING
1.8
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
3.3
7
X + 9. 056
R-SQ. = 0. 999
787
F=
CSF
Y = 358. 989
R-91 =
21
3
2939
14.3
184971
STIFF. ( MOE )
Y =-2. 897
167
64.9
386
50.9
a 581
168
240
311
383
71. 7
63. 3
54.8
46.4
4782
4273
3763
3254
25. 6
97,. 9
79. 4
81. 8
24±
310675
272877
X +406. 622
F= 2.768
CONCORA
=-42.217 X + 139.242
R-SQ.= 0. 688
F= 4.485
BREAKING LENGTH
=-2547. 275
R-SQ.= 0.985
X + 8857.875
F= 131.340
BURST FACTOR
'I =43.536 X + 47.292
R-S= 8.916 F= 21.938
TEAR FACTOR
17. 5
86.
Y = 11.786 X + 60.542
R-S.= O. 110 F= 8.248
348473
STIFF. ( MOE )
X + a0852. 687
Y =-1 m-4 7.604
F= 14.806
R-SQ. = O. 881
X - MEAN =
411
235080
109
FGL2l
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA
INTERVALS 1,
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
650
313
1000
205
8. 5
3. 2
23. 2
35. 4
47. 5
2. 5
2.2
1024
2679
11.7
93.8
120046
7-x7.0
2.1
3335
705
4. 2
TEAR FACTOR
83. 4
STIFF. ( MOE )
42523
CONSTANT FREENESS,
STIFF. ( MOE )
237
532
31. 3
2.6
2331
2.3
3045
-10.1
91. 6
13. 0
93. 7
103725
149953
333, 667,
CONSTANT BEAT I NG,
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
Y =-Z 810
190831
76. 6
192023
1000 PF I REV
308
205
24. 4
36. 0
47. 5
2.2
2.1
3335
13. 7
8
14. 3
77. 4
166307
190831
REGR. -BULK,
LOG BEATING
14. 3
77. 4
1016
48.1
2.1
3340
14.3
547
2732
11.9
93.8
124335
STIFF. (MOE)
13.7
93.6
165081
600, 400, 200 ML CSF
20. 1
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
2, 3, 4
300
572
0
BURST 'FACTOR
L I N.
YIELD= 75.520
AlB3C2S3T3
1. 6,
4. 6
1.. 8,
4. 0
60
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
"Z. 5
2. 9
147
234
320
57.?
51. 2
44.?
4517
4082
3646
19. 4
17. 5
.15. 6
87. 8
87. 6
87. 5
87. 3
247629
221279
194929
168579
X + 9.
F= 57.321
R-SQ. = 0.966
CSF
X +-634.466
= 434.031
F= it 523
R-SQ.= O. 852
CONCORA
V=-32.439 X + 109.609
F= 18.595
R-SQ. = O. 933
BREAKING LENGTH
3211
X + 5:1.532
F= 342.106
Y =-2177. 036
R-SQ. = O. 994
BURST FACTOR
=-9.450 X + 34.540
R-SO. = a990 F= 207.345
TEAR FACTOR
v=-a851
861
R-SQ. = O.
X + 89. 198
3
STIFF. (MOE )
=-131748. 730
R-S. = 0.982
F= 0. 805
X + 458426.618
F= 112. 240
X - MEAN = 2. 496
110
COOK
A3B3C253T3
FGL22
ORIGINAL DATA,
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
YIELD= 67. 360
".
INTERVALS 1., 2, 3,4
0
300
650
349
208
626
1000
106
18.
2. 6
38. 4
46. 9
5%7. 8
1812
9.3
3711
1.9
4235
24. 0
2.0
3786
26.7
TEAR FACTOR
141. 7
130. '8
99. 8
32. 5
99. 4
STIFF. <MOE )
105673
206654
253252
266675
,BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST 'FACTOR
CONSTANT FREENESS,
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE )
600, 400, 200 ML CSF
28
245
677
19. 9
34. 6
47. 4
2.6
/990
2.2
3361
3821
10. 7
140. 7
1151.51
21. 3
27. 1
132. 8
99.2
254305
188062
CONSTANT BEAT I NG, 333, 667,
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
-7:9. 9
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF.(M0E)
2. 0
1000 PF I REV
203
106
47. 2
52. 8
2. 1
9.0
9
3718
3808
427:5
24. 2
26. 9
99. 5
3':". 5
127. 8
211092
253891
266675
REGR. -BULK, 1. 6,
4. 7
LOG BEATING
x+
1.2.1.00
=4.608
L I N.
R-SQ.= 8.971
F= 67.322
Y =748.098
X +-1305. 549
R-SQ. = 8.983
F= 113. 693
I.. 8,
3. 8
'49. 4
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
2. 9
2. 0
-109
41
6:3. 2
58.1
47. 9
37. 8
5427
4718
4029
.7.301
41. 9
35. 4
98. 9
75. 2
89. 4
103. 6
348104
299472
950839
CSF
CONCORA
=-58. 729 X + 149. 406
R-SQ.= 8.995
F= 366. 805
BREAKING LENGTH
=-3543.872
R-SQ.=
a 972
X + 11095. 614
F= 70.366
BURST FACTOR
V=-32.784 X + 94. 269
R-SQ. = O. 987
F= 157. 853
TEAR FACTOR
= 71.187 X 4-38. 728
R-SQ.= 8.881
STIFF. (MOE)
Y =-243162. 565
R-SQ. = O. 994
F= 8.848
X + 737164. 573
F= 320. 612
X - MEAN
2. 176
COOK
FGL23
A282C354T4
ORIGINAL DATA,
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
0
729
9.3
3.2
1475
6.2
- TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE )
6%70*?
4
2.2
3005
23.
14. 8
600, 400, 200 ML
762
1140
38. 0
46. 2
2. 2
2. 2
3072
3850
2.0
5032
20. 4
2,. 5
2
93.8
259394
1'-')%9.
211831
606
450
24. 5
36. 0
3052
15.1
142.5
195966
X + 8.821
F= 345.362
V = 316.468
X 4-244. 106
F= 3.462
CSF
CONCORA
49.
=-26.794 X + 92. 634
F= 8.659
5111
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 8959. On
R-9).= O. 860
F= 12. 265
BURST FACTOR
Y =-14.280
R-S= 8.848
X + 58.578
F= 18.582
TEAR FACTOR
123.
X + 119. 984
Y=
241
R-5Q= 8.804 F= 8.889
STIFF. (MOE)
=-166984. 390
R-SQ.= 8.989
241796
25. 0
2.2
R-SQ. = 0.994
=-2405. 307
24. 9
103. 8
347
LOG BEATING
R-SQ.= 8.812
3501
2.1
4595
197800
CONCORFi
R-SQ. = 0.634
43. 2
143. 8
CSF
=-2.791
-z.5. 6
195773
CONSTANT BEATINGS 333, 667,
STIFF. (MOE)
1000
274
49493
196047
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
650
459
123. 2
15. 3
142. 0
STIFF. (MOE)
300
18. 4
130, 8
CONSTANT FREENESS,
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
111
YIELD= 75. 340
307749
X + 574923. 540
F= 181.932
X - MEAN =
2. 2
1000 PF I
274
4. 2
2.1
4595
18. 7
129. 6
24. 9
103.
199895
2417q*F.;
REVS
COOK
A583C253T3
FGL2
ORIGINAL D.Frnn,
INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
BEAT I NG
720
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
YIELD= 66. 900
11. 9
650
349
300
615
26.5
35. 9
3.0
2960
6341
2.1
7397
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
171. 2
23. 3
148. 9
111. 3
STIFF. (MOE)
79277
153891
221561
8.6
2. 3
30. 4
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
320
27.0
2.3
6401
583
974
34. 1
51. 5
2.2
7194
2.0
8715
146. 7
29. 1
118. 5
34. 3
96. 7
157713
208668
232066
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
-)3. 7
STIFF. ( MOE )
CONSTANT BEATINGS 333, 667,
590
27.4
2.3
6442
24.0
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAK I NO LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
1000 PFI REV.'S
188
341
36.7
2.1
7465
30.6
52. 8
2.0
8821
145. 3
110. 6
34. 6
95. 5
160345
222196
27:2904
REGR. -BULK,
L I N.
4.
LOG BEATING
1. 6,
5
1. 8,
2. 0,
2. 2
CC/GM
2.6
3. 9
=-3.249 X + 9.724
R-SQ.= 0.969 F= 62.019
82
185
287
389
60. 1
52. 6
45. 1
37.6
10794
9624
8455
7286
33... 8
28.4
CSF
= 510.580
R-91= 0.790
X 4-734.442
F= 7.524
CONCORA
=-37. 501 X + 128. 092
R-SQ. = 8.859 F= 12.144
BREAK I NG LENGTH
=-5845.738
R-9. = 0. 984
X + 20146. 683
F= 124. 499
BURST FACTOR
44. 5
39. 1
74. 4
89. 6
104.7
119.9
Y = 75.968 X 4-47.192
R-91 = 0.867 F= 13.885
295798
STIFF. (MOE )
262988
230179
197369
=-26.819 X + 87.409
R-SQ. = O. 992
TEAR FACTOR
F= 260. 680
X + 558274. 764
=-164048. ee4
R-SQ. = 0.960 F= 47.428
X - MEAN = 2. 355
1 1 3
COOK
A4B4C352T2
FGL24
ORIGINAL DATA
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAK I MG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE )
YIELD
76. 880
74
I NTERVRLS 1, 2, 3, 4
650
300
430
630
7%7'8
000
250
9. la
26. 3
38. 7
43. 4
7.'")
1664
5.1
105.0
71580
3.6
3811
5. 5
4614
2.2
6368
125. 1
118. 4
22. 9
99. 2
54264
192794
20988:3
20. 7
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML
BERT I NG
353
708
1097
CONCORA
BULK
28. 2
39. 5
44. 7
3.4
BREAK I MG LENGTH
-393-2
2.3
4906
2.1
6856
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
16. 3
124.
21. 1
115. 2
23. 5
93. 8
ST I FF (MOE)
75044
195643
214636
CONSTANT BEATING
333, 667, 1_000 PF I
250
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
611
27.5
3.5
3888
16.0
421
38.9
2.3
4697
20.8
124. 5
117. 5
99. *,
STIFF. (MOE)
67457
193608
209888
CSF
CONCURR
BULK
BREAK I NO LENGTH
REGR. -BULK, 1. 6,
L I N.
3. 3
LOG BEATING
Y =-1. 012
A_ 8,
43. 4
F.368
22. 9
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
2.7
3. 1
2.9
178
232
287
49. 9
46. 5
43.i
39.8
6587
6181
5774
5368
25. 8
24. 2
22.6
21.0
100. 9
102. 7
104. 5
274049
250736
227423
X + 4. 923
R-SQ.= 8.244
F= 8. 644
Y = 272.389
X+-257.953
R-SQ.= 8.762
Fmt
CSF
6.488
CONCORA
=-16.851 X + 76.828
F 2.543
R-S.= 8.568
BREAK I NG LENGTH
Y =-2030. 734
X + 9835. 915
R-SQ.= 0.504
F= 2.032
BURST FACTOR
X + 38.623
V=-8.016
F= 1.797
R-SQ.= 8.473
TEAR FACTOR
Y = 9. 065
106.
X + 86. 367
R-SQ.= 8.269
F= 8.735
STIFF. (MOE)
=4.16565. 691
R-SO.= 8.975
.
X + 468554.119
F= 78.278
X - MEAN = 2. 817
204110
FGL25
COOK
YIELD= 66. 190
Fi383C255T3
ORIGINAL DATA
INTERVALS 1. 2, 3, 4
300
0
BEAT I NO
CSF
650
71719
CONCUR Ft
STIFF. (MOE)
34. 4
3. 1
2.3
3683
"7. 2
2. 3
4300
4664
5
32. 8
135. 6
20. 4
139. 6
133. 3
144. 3
81881
188052
154423
192606
CONSTANT FREENESS,
BEATING.
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
717
36.0
27121
L I N.
44. 4
2. 2
2. 3
4369
4724
19. 1
3
34. 4
139. 2
135. 4
146. 1
177523
161687
198939
1.000 PF I
234
43.0
574
429
28. 8
34. 8
3742
2.2
4317
291. 7
0
0
139. 0
133. 8
144. 3
184849
156241
192606
REGR. -BULK,
6,
1. 8,
REV S
4664
2. 0,
5. 1
4.4
179
7.05.7
55. 9
49. 7
6435
5770
40. 6
36. 1
141. 5
140. 7
140. 0
256397
2824
209252
LOG BEATING
=-3. 459
1058
2.4
3473
CONSTANT BEATING, 333, 667,
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
MOE
ST I FF
CSF
600, 400, 200
26. 4
STIFF. (MOE)
234
43. 0
28. 2
1566
7.4
BREAK I MG LENGTH
100121
41'9
10. 3
BULK
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
X.
X + 10.684
F=
R-SQ.= 0.978
CSF
Y = 361.250
X+-398.612
R-SQ.= 0.498
F=1.984
CONCORA
=-31.11.6 X + 106.730
R-SQ.= O.
F= 8.358
7
BREAKING LENGTH
Y =-3324. 728
X + 11754.624
R-S8.921
F= 23. 244
BURST FACTOR
5105
4440
V=-22.571 X + 76. 706
F= 5.576
R-SQ. = 0.736
TEAR FACTOR
=-3.793
X + 147. 546
R-SQ. = 0.098
F= 0.219
STIFF. (MOE)
=-117861. 551
R-SQ. = 8.849
X + 444975. 062
F= 11.211
X - MEAN :=
2. 4
185680
115
FGL26
COOK
A3B3C2S1T3
ORIGINAL DATA,
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
I NTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
300
650
625
374
1000
STIFF. (MOE)
7-z28
11. 0
21. 5
40. 0
48. 2
3.0
1563
6.5
2.7
2856
2.5
3609
2.5
3743
14. 0
168. 9
17. 1
17. 4
124. 1
126. 8
1.17. 8
76422
142052
221750
198651
CONSTANT FREENESS,
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
YIELD= 68.450
600, 400, 200 ML CSF
614
1974
23. 3
38. 1
7-1. 0
2. 7
14. 4
164. 7
2.5
3531
16.8
2.5
4116
18.4
131. 2
92. 8
149990
213494
134376
CONSTANT BEATING, 333, 667, 1000 PF I REV S
372
40.4
2.5
3615
17.1
48.2
2.5
3743
17.4
126. 4
2206591
198651
601
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
2.7
BREAK: I MG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
14. 3
164. 8
149642
STIFF. (MOE)
REGR. -BULK,
L I N.
1. 6,
1. 8,
117. 8
2.
a. 2. 2 CC/GM
7. 9
6. 8
5.?
4. 7
-246
-108
31
169
101. 6
88.5
75.3
62.1
7321
6513
5706
4898
35. 7
31. 7
27. 6
23. 6
116. 5
119. 8
123. 1
126. 4
443192
390903
338615
286326
LOG BEATING
=-5.349
X + 16.431
F= 1.5. 205
a
884
R-Sa=
CSF
= 692.423
R-S.=
a
X+-1353.895
F= 1.5. 920
CONCORA
Y =-65.918 X + 297. 115
F= 29. 603
R-92 = 8. 912
BREAKING LENGTH
=-4037.914
= 0.987
X + 13781.500
F= 151.632
BURST FACTOR
V=-2a262
262 X + 68.146
R-S. = O. 965
F= 54. 580
TEAR FACTOR
=16.512 X + 90.046
R-S= 0.030 F= 8.863
STIFF. (MOE)
X + 86150.1.486
=-261443.371
R-SQ.= 0.983
F= 112.753
X - MEAN = 2. 684
COOK
FGL27
Fi2B4C354T2
ORIGINAL DATA,
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
YIELD= 78. 750
INTERVALS 1 2, 3, 4
715
300
591
650
430
1000
197
10. 8
9'3% 1
3/. 5
48. 8
3. 2
2.5
2. 3
2.2
3595
0
13. 7
3239
15.5
132. 0
101. 3
19. 0
87. 5
119581
175701
186307
1296
6. 'I"
.58204
STIFF. ( MOE )
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400,
STIFF. ( MOE )
200 ML CSF
278
695
995
21. 3
33. 8
48. 6
2. 6
2529
13.2
2.3
3285
15.9
3590
129. 1
99. 5
19. 0
87. 7
115126
177067
186170
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
CONSTANT BEATING, 33
667,
,
1000 PF I REV
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
576
419
197
23. 0
32. 4
48. 8
BREAK I MG LENGTH
2684
3256
2.2
3594
13. 9
129. 1
100. 6
19. 0
87. 5
124926
176206
186307
s".5
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
L I N.
REGR. -BULK..
LOG BEATING
=-3.833
I. 6,
15. 6
1. 8..
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
3.1
4.3
3.7
66
154
242330
59. 0
52.5
46.1
39.6
4802
4357
3912
3467
20. 1
17. 8
X + 9.885
R-91. = 8.965
F= 55.394
CST*
= 439. 484
R-S.= 0.792
X +-637. 323
F= 7.635
CONCORA
Y =-32.274 X + 118.614
R-SQ. = 8.827
F= 9.554
BREAKING LENGTH
=-2224.971
R-S= 8.994
X + 8361.971
F= 335.692
24. 9
BURST FACTOR
=-1t849 X 4. 43.824
R-SQ. = O. 986
F= 136.865
TEAR FACTOR
V=-i648 X + 107. 481
R-SQ.= 0.881
ST I FF. ( MOE )
=-126854. 942
R-91 = 8.951
,F4
104.5
104. 2
103. 9
255428
230057
204686
179315
104.
F= 0.083
X + 458396. 271
F= 38.486
X - MEAN = 2.550
A482C352T4
FGL28
COOK
ORIGINAL DATA,
INTERVALS 1, 2, 3, 4
0
BEAT I MG
CONCORFI
703
9.8
BULK
3. 8
CSF
1092
4.3
94.0
50960
BREAK I MG LENGTH
BURST -FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE )
CONSTANT FREENESS,
300
655
28.2
2.4
3857
660
345
43.1
2.0
5006
1000
145
21. 5
129. 5
29. 0
92. 6
26. 0
82. 7
207005
286857
255732
BREAK I MG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
596
907
30.
40. 5
45. 5
2.3
4061
2.1
4802
27.6
2.1
5098
26.8
'72. 8
Ci
99. 1
85. 4
221172
272690
264291
123.
STIFF. (MOE)
46.4
2.1
5133
126. 1
28. 9
92. 4
26. 0
82. 7
214399
286247
255732
29. 6
2.3
3964
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
22. 2
REGR. -BULK,
L I N.
1. 6,
1. 8,
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
3. 7
3. 4
3.1
2.7
244
288
33:2
376
50. 3
46. 6
42. 9
39. 1
5951
5510
5070
4629
33. 1
30. 5
sv7.9
25. 2
100. 8
100. 6
100. 4
100. 1
321935
297300
272s;64
248029
LOG BEATING
Y =4.661
45
341
43.2
2.0
5009
626
BULK:
2.1
5133
333, 667, 1000 PF I REV'S
CONSTANT BEAT I NG,
CSF
CONCORA
46. 4
600, 400, 200 ML CSF
364
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
YIELD= 71. 980
X + 6.373
F= 219. 716
R-SQ. = 0.991
CSF
Y = 228. 013
X +407. 570
R-SQ. = O. 488
F=
936
CONCORA
=-18. 666 X + 80. 198
R-S
F= 14.444
0.878
BREAKING LENGTH
X + 9477. 426
Y =-2203. 893
R-SQ.
F= 66.632
8.971
BURST FACTOR
=43.042 X + 53. 937
R-SQ. = 8.984
F= 12t949
TEAR FACTOR
Y
097
X + 122.556
R-SQ.= 0.082
ST I FF. ( MOE )
F= 8.084
X + 519017. 137
=-123176. 364
F= 73. 89'3
R-9). = O. 974
X - MEAN = 2. 589
A3B3C2S3T3
INTER VtFIL.S;
0
30ci
650
1000
210
26. 4
40. 7
45. 1
2.2
2954
2.0
4537
4620
166. 7
29. 8
162. 4
28. 5
107. 0
32. 0
105. 2
100098
209776
248334
919755
701
604
12. 9
2. 7
1823
8.5
STIFF. (MOE)
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400,
BEATING
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF.(MOE)
305
26. 6
2.2
3963
99. q
37.2
2.1
4393
27.1
2.13
200 !IL
1028
45.5
2.13
4627
32.3
161. 6
120. 7
105. 1
210345
238801
217432
CONSTANT BEATING, 333, 667, 1000 PFI REV'S
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
578
327
210
27. 7
40. 9
45. 1
2. 2
2. 0
2. 0
BREFiK I NO LENGTH
4010
4541
4620
23. 4
157.
28. 7
32. 0
106. 9
1135. 2
213448
246973
219755
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE )
LIN. REGR. -BULK,
LOG BEATING
4.
Y-4.381
1.
9
X + 11953
R-92. = 8.971
F= 67.859
CSF
47
= 633. 214
R-S.= 8.756
X 3-965. 881
F= 6.193
CONCORA
60. 5
Y =-44.647 X + 131.931
R-SQ. = O. 920
F= 22. 882
BREAKING LENGTH
6448
Y =-4143.547
X + 13877.191
R-SQ. = O. 993
F= 279. 159
BURST FACTOR
44. 3
Y=-32.629 X + 96.535
R-SQ.=
9.979
F= 93.175
TEAR FACTOR
77. 1
= m.9136 X +-65. 125
R-S.= 0.685
F= 4.341
STIFF.
tr.
MOE >
Y =-201778. 794
R-Sa= 8953
118
1,234
3, 4
ORIGINAL DATA
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
YIELD= 68. 080
326645
X + 649478. 343
F= 40.391
X - MEAN
286291
X.
119
COOK
FGL30
YIELD= 68. 080
F12B4C154T4
ORIGINAL DATA, INTERVRLS I, 2, 3, 4
BEATING
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
735
300
604
650
349
1000
248
8. 8
21. 8
38. 4
43. 8
4.1
887
3.0
3250
2.5
3973
2.4
3839
4. 1
11. 9
18. 7
".)1°. 3
128.?
188364
0
BREAK I MG LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
100. 6
155. 2
137. 5
STIFF. crioE)
44295
13.52421
158731
CONSTANT FREENESS, 600, 400, 200 ML CSF
'305
580
1166
22. 1
3.5. 0
46. 4
23
26
3251
3829
3775
12. 0
17. 3.
BEAT I NG
CONCORA
BULK
BREAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
ST I FF. < MOE )
155. 0
141.-1
25. 5
124. 5
135610
154033
202447
CONSTANT BEATING, 333, 667, 1000 PF I REVS
CSF
CONCORA
BULK
E:REAKING LENGTH
BURST FACTOR
TEAR FACTOR
STIFF. (MOE)
580
344
248
23. 4
38. 6
43. 8
-.". 9
25
24
3319
3967
3839
12. 6
152. 5
18. 9
137. 1
21% --z
128. 7
137479
160142
188364
L N. REGR. -BULK, 1_ 6,
4. 6
LOG BEATING
V=-i786
/.. 8,
4. 2
2. 0,
2. 2 CC/GM
7. 9
X + 7.427
R-SQ.= 0.975
F= 77.281
Y = 265. 657
X .1-312. 335
R-SQ.= 8.836
F= 10. 294
113
CSF
CONCORA
55. 6
51. 7
5554
5187
=-19.625 X +87.824
R-SQ. = O. 905
F= 19. 012
BREAKING LENGTH
=-1836.458
R-91. = O. 979
X + 8492. 462
F= 91. 639
BURST FACTOR
=-18. 351 X + 45. 522
R-SQ. = 0. 921
F= 23. 209
TEAR FACTOR
158. 7
V=-28.148 X + 190. 898
= 8.467
STIFF. ( moE )
=-79885.687
R-SQ. = O. 987
F=
753
2437:06
X + 371123. 346
F= 149. 850
X - MEAN = 2. 99:3
4820
4452