Implementing a hardness profile measurement to a converting mill
Nissinen, Joni (2019)
Nissinen, Joni
2019
All rights reserved. This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2019102220116
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2019102220116
Tiivistelmä
Roll hardness profile is good indication for possible runnability problems that can be caused by several reasons from paper properties to winder settings. A mill had made an investment decision to replace the old Parotester measurement with a modern RoQ measurement for more accurate results. The aim of this work was to implement the new device to the mill and determine possible causes affecting the results.
Data was collected from base paper rolls delivered from two suppliers by using test method based on manufacturers user instructions. This data was analysed with Minitab program to compare suppliers. Trials were run at customer’s premises to understand where the problem starts. Metallising process was also studied to determine if it had any impact on the hardness profile.
The metallising process did have an impact to the hardness profile. The most noticeable difference was uneven drop in the mean values across the width. Trial showed that problems start after COV% value go over 6%. Differences were spot-ted between suppliers in both analysed values, mean and COV%.
Data was collected from base paper rolls delivered from two suppliers by using test method based on manufacturers user instructions. This data was analysed with Minitab program to compare suppliers. Trials were run at customer’s premises to understand where the problem starts. Metallising process was also studied to determine if it had any impact on the hardness profile.
The metallising process did have an impact to the hardness profile. The most noticeable difference was uneven drop in the mean values across the width. Trial showed that problems start after COV% value go over 6%. Differences were spot-ted between suppliers in both analysed values, mean and COV%.