LUJi

-."

,-

/
-

--

--

THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY Appleton, Wisconsin

DIAPHRAGM PRESSURE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

x/Project 1108-26

Report Fourteen

A Progress Report

to

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOURDRINIER KRAFT BOARD INSTITUTE, INC.

July 20, 1965

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PROCEDURES DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 1 2

3 4

THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY Appleton, Wisconsin

DIAPHRAGM PRESSURE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

SUMMARY

B.

F. Perkins & Son,

Inc. and the Institute have been working together

to agree on a standard procedure for evaluating the pressure of new diaphragms. The procedure used at the Institute in past work has basically involved two steps as follows:

1. 2.

Ten distentions to 0.71 inch to work the diaphragm. Five distentions to 0.375 inch to determine compliance with Rule 41.

The ten distentions to 0.71 inch serve to stretch the diaphragm.

The pressure

at 5/8 inch after this stretching is nearly the same as would be encountered during the major portion of diaphragm life.

The possibility of changing the procedure to substitute 10 distentions to 0.375 inch in place of 0.71 inch was raised by Perkins. A small study was

carried out to check the effect of the initial distention level (0.375 or 0.71 inch) with the following results:

1.

If the diaphragm is initially distended to 0.71 inch, the subsequent pressure measurements at 0.375 inch are approximately the same as encountered during early portions of the diaphragm life. Thus, this procedure gives a more accurate indication of the pressures which will be encountered by the user. If the diaphragm is given ten initial distentions to 0.375 inch, the subsequent pressure measurements at 0.575 inch will decrease substantially after only a few tests. This procedure is not favored for this reason.

2.

Technical Committee Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Project 1108-26

Page 2 Report Fourteen

Perkins is going to use the procedure involving the initial distentions to 0.71 inch in their future work. They are hopeful this will permit them to

achieve better uniformity and control of the diaphragms supplied to the trade. As soon as their next lot of diaphragms is ried out between Perkins and the Institute. received, a round-robin will be car-

INTRODUCTION

In recent months B. diaphragm to the industry.

F. Perkins & Son,

Inc.

has supplied a new type of individually packaged

Each of the new diaphragms is

in an envelope bearing a printed guarantee that it ments. Unfortunately,

complies with Rule 41 require-

diaphragm pressures attained with certain batches of the (23-50 p.s.i.) on both high and

new diaphragms have exceeded Rule 41 tolerances low sides.

The Institute has been working with Perkins to assist them in developing a standard procedure for evaluating diaphragm pressure. be used by Perkins to control diaphragm uniformity. It This procedure could

may also be used by the

industry to check diaphragms for acceptance under Rule 41.

The procedure used in past work for evaluating diaphragm pressure acceptability of new diaphragms is as follows:

1.

Install the diaphragm and adjust the diaphragm height in its retracted position so that its upper surface is flush with the lower platen. Distend the diaphragm to approximately 0.71 inch, ten times. Check to determine if the diaphragm in its retracted position is still flush with the lower platen and adjust if necessary. Determine the pressure required to distend the diaphragm to 3/8 inch. Make a total of five determinations.

2.

3.

4.

Technical Committee Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Project 1108-26

Page 3 Report Fourteen

The above measurements are carried out using the automatic device which stops the tester at the selected distention. the pressure determination. A 120-p.s.i. gage is being used for

The above procedure requires that the diaphragm be distended ten times to 0.71 inch before making the pressure measurements at 3/8 inch. It is well

known that the pressure at 3/8 inch of a new diaphragm will exhibit a substantial decrease after only a few linerboard or combined board tests.. The diaphragm pressure is then nearly constant or decreases very slowly over long periods of diaphragm life. It was felt that diaphragm pressure procedures for new diaphragms

should estimate what the pressure will be during the major portion of diaphragm life. The distentions to 0.71 inch were incorporated in the procedure to accom-

plish this purpose.

Recently, a study was carried out to determine if ten distentions to 3/8 inch would serve the same purpose as the distentions to 0.71 inch. would simplify the procedure - if satisfactory results were obtained. of the study are summarized herein. This The results

PROCEDURES

A.

Tester: device.

hydraulic tester with 120-p.s.i. gage and distention shut-off

B.

Diaphragm evaluation: ing procedures:

three diaphragms were evaluated using the follow-

Technical Committee Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Project 1108-26

Inc.

Page 4 Report Fourteen

Procedure A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. No. of distentions to 3/8 inch No. of distentions to 0.71 inch Pressure measurements at 5/8 inch No. of 200-lb. series combined board tests Pressure measurements at 3/8 inch No. of 200-lb. series combined board tests 10

Procedure B 0 10

5
50

5
50

5
50

5
50

Pressure measurements at 3/8 inch

Thus, the procedures differed only in the initial distention level of 0.71 or 3/8 inch. The combined board tests were made to stretch the diaphragm

sufficiently to obtain an indication of what its operating diaphragm pressure would be.

Similar tests were also carried out by Perkins.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results obtained are summarized in Table I. that 1.

In general, it appears

If the diaphragm is given ten initial distentions to 0.71 inch, the subsequent pressure measurements at 0.375 inch are approximately the same as will be encountered during early portions of the diaphragm life. Thus, this procedure (B) gives a more accurate indication of the diaphragm pressures which will be encountered by the user. If the diaphragm is given ten initial distentions to 0.375 inch, the subsequent pressure measurements at 0.575 inch decrease substantially after only a few tests. This procedure is not favored because it does not give a realistic evaluation of the pressures which will be encountered by the user.

2.

Li-

Ca) 0 rr* -4 -0
OZ An

a)
C)

-c rC toO
U> 00U> Li\>LC'\
t-

toO HHHOOO0O>66 C K r\N"\ '\ WNK>\KIN>C -4-ZtNN>K> N c CMjCMCMIiC\jC N>l CMj

LOUNOo 0

C00tUN\

t--

-t4 4
0 0Lr\L0 -t -t 0 N> N> N>j O N>

N> N> KN> K

0 0m1

C'j CMicCM

N>( lCMCM cM

a)
5-4 4-,
n-H

a)
m 0 00 00 >0 toO UN 000000 0 H4 H H4 "0 4 Cu r-IHHH K>\N>N>l hN\ N>\ M> N>\ NC' K>\ rN> 0

0 0 >'00
I-A
U>to0000

to LN U> UN)>f to~ 01CM 0)i CM NcM (V

An
mI

wi

PCo

00 Q) EH
Id U>i Uj Ui UN U>j LI>

00

U>

C4
UN
o 0 to

a)

CUi CM CMjCM CMj

o0

tor\

0 to\ UN~ U\ 4- 404010101CMj

LA

0 CMCMCMCMCU C CM

ttLI\>0

N>~

C-H
I-I

Cd

U> N K> 0110 H~ H~ H~1 K>'NP>N>'\K-N P\K> N K\ >NtN>

a)
C~ r 10 0 0 totototoir~
U>

it

4 - 4 -4- 4- 4 -4 3M 010 CMjc CMj CM

4) CH

Id

* An

(2.
NH

0
to

0
4n

IC

a)
FI-

H U>
-H
*

4-I

SN

C) An
I

oO

U> U>

000 '0 C

4,

> 0 0

CC)

c6 t-L -Lt--\ '0~6~ \06 'ox CU C\M0I NNCNCNNU0NC

In

0000UN

i-

*e

UNo

to

oo 0C
NCM01CMC

0 C') tN>\ 0 _-4-_Z N>N>N>t(' 0101c 010101C~

000

N>- N> K N>\ K> -

N>

An

~
OO0toOO0oOO
0 0

C~

CZ,

it4

a)
E-N

Id

4-I

F-. 0
a.)

p-i >0

0 C) 4n

U>L\CNLCN
0
*r

U>U

00

CM A

U'% AK>: K> N N>' N> cu OM 01 0) 0

-toO~D~, 0 00 H 00N-tN-\0\0\0'0 N-I An

oU>%0 0

K>

M cm N>j N> N>

N>

a)
>, -i 43
>0 CMj
'-I 143 10 -A

4 C~

0 '0 '0 KB K CM\CM 010101

Ani

a) n-QA

toto co )
Cd -H K>\ K>\t\ M0000 N> N CM

too

SN

-4-KB UN 4 -401010101I CMjC~ 4-j

C> C 00 0 00 '0 a)W- -4 -4- 4 N> K>\ N>~ A 01010101CMi c cMia CU p

HAO 01

N>-f to'

N-co C 0 0 Hi

t0

1 K > 4~% -=t

&~(\ CM

>-:

to

>
-C4

H cMiN >4-

U>

Technical Committee Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Project 1108-26

Page 6 Report Fourteen

Perkins also conducted a series of tests using procedure A, as shown in Table II. These results exhibited the same trends. In view of the above, Perkins has indicated they will employ procedure B in evaluating diaphragms. It is believed that use of this standard procedure

should have the following advantages: 1. Supplier-user conflicts should be reduced when each uses the same procedure.

2. The provision for prestressing to 0.71 inch should enable the manufacturer to more accurately evaluate the pressure at 0.375 inch which will be obtained by the user. He can then control variations in pressure caused during manufacture.

5. The mechanized system for stopping the distention at

0.575 inch should reduce measurement variability and ultimately permit better control of pressure. A procedure, such as the above, for evaluating diaphragm pressure may A round-robin

be printed by Perkins on each envelope containing a new diaphragm. test of such a procedure by the FKI membership may be desirable.

THE INSTITUTE OF PAPER CHEMISTRY

Willia' J. Whitsitt, Research Associate Container Section

R. C. McKee, Chairman Container Section

Technical Committee Fourdrinier Kraft Board Institute, Inc. Project 1108-26

Page 7 Report Fourteen

TABLE II DIAPHRAGM PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS BY B. F. PERKINS &-SON, INC.

Diaphragm Pressures at 3/8-inch, p.s.i. No. 1 No. 5 No. 8 No. 16

(Procedure A) Before board tests 1 2 27 27 27 27 27

28

28
28

53
4 5

28

Av.
After 50 combined board tests

27 . 25
25

28 28
27 27

29 29 29 29 29 29

29 29 29 29 29 29

1
2

5
4

25
25

26
26

27 26 26
26 26

5
Av. After 50 additional combined board tests

25
25

26 26 26
25
25 25 25

27 27 27 27 27 27 26

26
25 25 25 25 25
25

1
2

24

3
4 5
Av.

24 24 24
24

26
25 25
25

24

25

25