Paper wet strength at the press felt seam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Paper machine press felts often contain seams that facilitate their manufacturing and replacement. However, in industrial practice, breaks in the paper sheet commonly initiate at these seam locations. This study examines how press felt seams affect the local wet strength of high grammage papers. A custom experimental setup was developed to dewater paper using either tensioned seamed felts or two uniform felts separated by a small gap (“gap seam”). The pressed paper was then subjected to tensile testing. The pressure distribution near real press felt seams were mapped with pressure-sensitive film. From this, an “effective gap” was defined as the region with reduced pressure. This effective gap increases linearly with felt tension. The wet strength of paper produced using a seamed felt with a given effective gap matched that of paper pressed with a gap seam of the same size. The tests were conducted under industrially relevant conditions for a cardstock-grade paper, including press felt tension, pressure, furnish, and moisture content. Results showed that paper wet strength near the seam decreases exponentially with increasing seam size. The characteristic length scale of this decay closely matches the average fiber length in the furnish.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".