Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T01:56:30.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Differences Between Sonically and Mechanically Determined Elastic Moduli of Paper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

George L. Batten Jr.
George L. Batten Jr.*
Affiliation:
Georgia-Pacific Corp., 2883 Miller Rd., Decatur, GA 30035
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the differences between sonically- and mechanically-determined paper elastic moduli. Four factors are examined for their contributions to observed differences. Two factors, thermodynamics and the low frequency approximation, relate to the sonic method; the other two factors, load cell stiffness and paper viscoelasticity, relate to the mechanical method. When all four factors are given proper consideration, the differences between the two methods are reduced to the order of experimental error. Quantitative relationships between the two moduli are given.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Mann, R. W., Baum, G. A., and Habeger, C. C., Tappi J. 63(2): 163 (1980).Google Scholar
2. Mann, R. W., Ph.D. Thesis, The Institute of Paper Chemistry (1979).Google Scholar
3. Callen, H. B., “Thermodynamics,” Wiley, New York, 1960, Chapter 13.Google Scholar
4. Gammon, P. H., Kiefte, H., and Clouter, M. J., J. Phys. Chem. 87: 4025 (1983).Google Scholar
5. Weiner, J. H., “Statistical Mechanics of Elasticity,” Wiley, New York, 1983, p. 31.Google Scholar
6. Nakagawa, S., in “Handbook of Physical and Mechanical Testing of Paper and Paperboard, Vol.2,” Mark, R. E., Ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 1984, pp. 245–255.Google Scholar
7. Kittel, C., “Introduction to Solid State Physics-4th Ed.,” Wiley, New York, 1971, p. 142.Google Scholar
8. Saada, A. S., “Elasticity,” Pergamon, New York, 1974, p. 200.Google Scholar
9. Leadbetter, A. J., Proc. Roy. Soc. A287: 403 (1965).Google Scholar
10. Pearson, C. F., Halleck, P. M., Mcguire, P. L., Hermes, R., and Mathews, M., J. Phys. Chem. 87: 4180 (1983).Google Scholar
11. Green, C., Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 20: 151 (1981).Google Scholar
12. Kubat, J., Martin-Lof, S., and Soremark, C., Svensk Papperstidn. 72: 763 (1969).Google Scholar
13. Jayne, B. A., in “Theory and Design of Wood and Fiber Composite Materials,” Jayne, B. A., Ed., Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1972, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
14. Baum, G. A., IPC Technical Paper Series No. 186, The Institute of Paper Chemistry, June, 1986.Google Scholar
15. Baum, G. A., and Bornhoeft, L. R., Tappi 62(5): 87 (1979).Google Scholar
16. Habeger, C. C., Mann, R. W., and Baum, G. A., Ultrasonics 17(2): 57(1979).Google Scholar
17. Pappano, D. A., M.S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984.Google Scholar
18. Andersson, O., Ivarsson, B., Nissan, A. H., and Steenberg, B., Proc. Tech. Sect. P.M.A. 30: 1, 43 (1949).Google Scholar
19. Nissan, A. H., and Batten, G. L. Jr.,, Nordic Pulp Paper Res. J. Special Issue: 8 (August 6, 1987).Google Scholar
20. Mase, G. E., “Continuum Mechanics,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
21. Skowronski, J. and Robertson, A. A., J. Pulp Paper Sci. 11 (1): J21 (1985).Google Scholar