<<

Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works

Theses

5-1-1988

Factors affecting the strength and openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes

Geoffrey Hyatt

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

Recommended Citation Hyatt, Geoffrey, "Factors affecting the strength and openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes" (1988). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Certificate of Approval -- Master's Thesis

School of Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

MASTER'S THESIS

This is to certify that the Master's Thesis of

Geoffrey Hyatt

With a major in Printing Technology has been approved by the Thesis Committee as satisfactory for the thesis requirement for the Master of Science degree at the convocation of

August, 1988

Thesis Committee: W. Rebsamen Thesis Advisor Joseph L. Noga Graduate Program--~~--~~---- Coordinator Miles Southworth Director or Designate FACTORS AFFECTING THE STRENGTH AND OPENABILITY

OF TIGHT BACKED, ADHESIVE BOUND, HARDCOVER VOLUMES

by

Geoffrey Thomas Hyatt

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sciences in the School of Printing Management and Sciences in the College of Graphic Arts and Photography of the Rochester Institute of Technology

May 1988

Thesis Advisor: Professor Werner Rebsamen g, "t ~ . Bed sample statement for granting or denying permission to

'" ";.~ >,, oduce an RI~ thesis.

~tle of Thesis fq ,-~ ( A~~c.J~",~ -\-It ~4Cl Wjtl) cV'd Q ¥L v\J2\} ~.l i 9~

..ll$ ~ 6ec...LJ.. I M:vu.\l\{\ \S-OV-.I\J. , 4crc!.w,, (.{ \/o\.cP (\' ~ ~ 0/t"ch'j T ·. l\.pA bereb~€a31 deny) permission to the Wallace Memo~ial ~ibrary~ of R.I.T.~ to , . reproduce my th~sis in whole or in part. Any reproduction w11l not be for commercial use or profit.

Or

I ____--..;. ______preter to be

Icontacted _ each time a request for reproduction is made. I can be reached-at the following address.

Geoffrey Hyatt -- ._-'" ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my greatest thanks to the members of my thesis committee, Professor Werner Rebsamen,

Dr. Charles Layne and Professor Eric Sanderson. Their advise and guidance, above and beyond the call of duty, were invaluable in the completion of this research. Secondly, I am grateful to Ruth Backus, Richard Adams and Alyson in the

Ross Computer Lab, for helping me through the perils of the

VAX/VMS computer system. Finally, I would like to thank

Susan O'Reilly and my parents for their endless patience and support during this endeavour.

i i

Chapter 1. 1

Structure of a Tight Backed 2

Adhesive Bound Hardcover 5

Rounding and Backing 7

Notes for 1 8

Chapter 2. Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses .. 9

Chapter 3. Review of Literature 11 Notes for Chapter 3 18

Chapter 4. Design Parameters and Methodology 19

Book Construction 21

Book Testing 27

Limitations 34

Statistical Analysis 36

Definition of Terms 37

Notes for Chapter 4 39

Chapter 5. Analysis of Data and Results 41

Results of Photocopy Openability Test 41

General Durability Observations 43

Universal Book Tester Durability Results 45

i i i Tumble Test Durability Results 47

Volume Appearance 51

Chapter 6. Summary and Conclusions 54

Chapter 7. Recommendations for Further Study 60

Bibliography 62

Appendices 64 Appendix A. Test Data Tables 65

Appendix B. Statistical Test Results 77

i v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. UBT Sum Data Table 66

Table 2. Tumble Test Sum Data Table 67

Table 3. Openability Data Table 68

Table 4. UBT Raw Data Table I 69

Table 5. UBT Raw Data Table II 70

Table 6. UBT Raw Data Table III 71

Table 7. UBT Raw Data Table IV 72

Table 8. Tumble Test Raw Data Table I 73

Table 9. Tumble Test Raw Data Table II 74

Table 10. Tumble Test Raw Data Table III 75

Table 11. Tumble Test Raw Data Table IV 76

Table 12. ANOVA Results for Openability Test 0.05 ... 78

Table 13. ANOVA Results for UBT Test 0.05 79

Table 14. ANOVA Results for Tumble Test 0.05 80

Table 15. ANOVA Results for Openability Test 0.01 ... 81

Table 16. ANOVA Results for UBT Test 0.01 82

Table 17. ANOVA Results for Tumble Test 0.01 83 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Tight Backed vs Conventional Joint and

Spine Preparation 5

Figure 2. Summary of Composition 22

Figure 3. Book Type Preparation Chart 22

Figure 4. Schematic Diagram of Treatments Under

Consideration 23

Figure 5. Vinyl Masks for Adhesive Application 26

Figure 6. Mean Openability Scores 44

Figure 7. UBT Mean Durability Scores 48

Figure 8. Tumble Test Mean Durability Scores 52 ABSTRACT

The practice of tight backing adhesive bound, hard cover books has long been thought to enhance durability at the expense of openability. Tight backing is popular in a number of specialized binding markets, the most notable of which is production. Yet despite their prevalence, there is a lack of information available about how the openability and durability characteristics of tight backed books are affected by variable factors in the production process.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate three variables involved in the production of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes. The three factors considered were bulk of the book block, surface area of adhesive application to the spine and stock. Analyses of durability was conducted using two pieces of testing apparatus, the

Octagonal Tumbling Drum and the Universal Book Tester.

Openability was measured using the Photocopy Openability

Test.

The statistical design utilized a blocked and rep• licated three way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), conducted at the 0.05 alpha level. Where the data led to the rejection of the null hypothesis, a Duncan Multiple Range Test was employed to isolate the source of the variation.

The procedures determined that bulk had no effect on openability, but became a factor in durability when the book was subjected to severe abuse. Paper stock was deemed to have no significant effect on either durability or openability. With regard to adhesive treatment, an inverted relationship was found to exist between durability and openability. As adhesive coating increased in surface area, durability was enhanced at the expense of openability. This was found to be a non-linear relationship. Finally, it was found that if the proper materials and construction techniques were employed in book production, then bindings with high durability could be created despite effects of other variable factors. CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factors that affect the durability and openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover . In making this investigation, one must remember that the primary aim of the book manufacturer is to deliver a quality product, properly suited to its end use requirements, at an economi• cal price. These seemingly conflicting demands require that the industry continually develop innovative techniques and materials, and find new ways to optimize those already in use. Accordingly, a number of specialized binding methods have been developed to meet the demands of specific market segments. The practice of "tight backing" is one such procedure.

As a hardcover binding method, tight backing provides increased durability at a relatively minor cost premium.

This has made it a popular technique for use in the production of books for educational purposes, where both durability and cost effectiveness are of great importance.

One may question why, if tight backing provides superior strength, it is not used more often on other hardcover bindings. One answer may be that the procedure tends to restrict the openability of a bound volume. This can be considered, at best, an undesirable characteristic, but one which is acceptable to certain segments of the book consuming market.

Structure of a Tight Backed Book

In conventionally constructed volumes, the book block (the book without its cover and ) is held in its case

(cover) by the adhesive force between the case and the book joints and endpapers. The endpapers are attached to the first and last signatures prior to gathering. After the book is gathered (placing all the individual signatures of the book in the correct order), the spine is roughened and adhesive applied.

In preparation for the final application of its case, the book block is trimmed to its finished size. Thereafter the book joints are formed during the rounding and backing operation. The procedure is as follows:

As the book emerges from the [rounding] rollers, two clamps grasp it slightly below the back edge. A heavy, concaved backing iron is then rolled back and forth against the binding edge, forcing the sections to bend and thus be secured in place. The point of bending is called the joint and the amount of bend should e

After rounding and backing is completed, the lining up operation affixes a gauze wrap, called "super" or "mull", to the spine. The super is cut wider than the thickness of the spine, in order to reinforce the adhesion between the endpapers and the book case. A lining, consisting of krinkle-kraft paper, is cut to the exact height and width of

the spine. The purpose of this lining is to stiffen the

spine and cover the exposed adhesive. Sometimes, in

conjunction with the lining up operation, headbands are

applied. However, since headbands perform a purely decorative function, they are not always utilized. The

purpose of the lining up operation is to prevent sagging, to maintain the roundness of the spine and to strengthen the

spine, which in turn will maximize the openability of the book.

During the casing-in operation a water based Polyvinyl

Acetate adhesive is applied to the endpapers and joints.

"Then the book case is positioned over the book [block], which is forced up into the case with the endpapers adhering to the boards. A series of pressure plates and heated formers press the book to set the [cover material] 2

into the joint." Accordingly, the force holding the book block in the case is only as strong as the adhesion between the case and the joints, the endpapers and the super.

Great care must be taken during casing-in, because a large proportion of binding failures result from the fact that the operation failed to provide the requisite strength.

The attainment of joint adhesion is critical for the production of an acceptably bound book. Without adhesive in the joints, [a] short book life is [very much] predictable. Worthwhile results are not produced easily. [However] it is difficult, indeed, to force sufficient adhesive into this joint area because of the acute angle of "turnout" of the outside signatures.

Almost every book consumer has experienced some failure in

regard to the casing-in operation when the book block of an

expensive hardcover book has detached itself from its case.

Indeed the Book Manufacturers Institute has identified "book

fall-out [as the] most important reason for book failure."4 T

ight backing is able to attain a greater degree of

strength because, as the name implies, the spine (back) of

the book block is glued to the spine of the case. The durability of the binding is greatly enhanced by the

additional adhesive coverage, which supplements the adhesion

in the joints and endpapers. (See figure 1)

As suggested previously, tight backing a book tends to

reduce its openability. In a conventionally bound hardcover volume, the fact that the spine is independent of the case allows the book to flex relatively freely upon opening.

However, when a volume is tight backed, the force exerted when it is opened actually causes the spine of the book block to flex against the adhesive holding it in the back of the case. Consequently, tight backed volumes will often not lie sufficiently open on a flat surface, causing consider• able inconvenience to the reader. This problem is made even more acute if insufficient bind margins are used, a characteristic which has become all too frequent with the

rising cost of paper and postage.

Figure 1

TIGHT BACKED VS CONVENTIONAL JOINT AND SPINE PREPARATION

Adhesive Bound Hardcover Books

Adhesive bound hardcover text books make up an increasing proportion of the tight backed books produced in Canada and the United States. This binding style is particularly prevalent in many educational applications due to its dura• bility and cost effectiveness. Nevertheless, many influen• tial school jurisdictions, such as Texas, West Virginia,

Tennessee and Kentucky, refuse adhesive bound volumes, claiming they lack the inherent flexibility and thread strength of Smythe sewn books and are therefore more subject to binding deterioration.5 However, inroads are being made toward wider acceptance of adhesive bound textbooks. The

Book Manufacturers Institute has recently adopted adhesive bound textbooks into their standard, albeit on a temporary basis, pending confirmation of performance.^

Unlike Smythe sewn books, most adhesive (perfect) bound books have their spines ground off during manufacture, thus

removing the folded binding edge and leaving individual pages to be bound together by an application of adhesive.

The adhesives therefore perform a dual purpose. They must have enough adhesion to hold the pages of the book together,

but must also possess enough flexibility to allow the volume

to open easily. While much progress has been made in

adhesive formulation over the past decades, some adhesive

bindings still display a tendency to split when forced open,

allowing leaves to fall out. To resist such failures, tight backing of adhesive bound hardcover volumes is now a common practice because it reduces the flexing angle of the volume, thereby distributing the tensile load more evenly across the bind edge. Thus openability is restricted in order to preserve the integrity of the adhesive bound volume.

As previously stated, cost is the principal reason that adhesive binding of hard cover volumes is chosen over other binding methods. It requires fewer materials and less manual intervention. The need for sewing individual signatures together, as required by Smythe sewing, is eliminated. Consequently a higher degree of integrated, mechanized production is possible in the production of adhesive bound volumes.

Rounding and Backing

By rounding the back of a hardcover book, the flexing angle of the bind edge is reduced when opened. A reduced flexing angle allows a more even distribution of tensile stress

across the entire book block, thereby reducing load in the most critical areas of the binding. Consequently rounding

and backing yields better openability with a reduced risk of

rupturing or splitting the binding. This factor is most

important on the first and last leaves of the book. Backing

"scores" these critical areas, reducing tensile stress and

splitting. Accordingly, this procedure is commonly used with adhesive bound, hardcover books, since the reduction in

flexing angle allows for the integrity of the spine adhesive

to remain intact. NOTES FOR CHAPTER 1

James Blaine (New York: Freund Co., Inc., 19(?)), p. 12.

2Ibid.

^Book Manufactures Institute. "Proceedings of 27th Annual Convention" (New York: BMI Incorporated, 1959), p. 53.

4Ibid. 5 Jerome Frank "Textbook 'Spec' Changes: Temporary but Significant" in Publishers Weekly (Vol. 232, No. 8, Aug. 21, 1987), p. 29. 6Ibid. CHAPTER 2

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES

The principal criteria used to judge a given binding method are durability and openability. Tight backed, adhesive bound hard cover books have long been assumed to increase binding durability, at the expense of openability. A

systematic exploration of the variables involved in the production process should be undertaken in order to discover

the particular relationship of each to openability and durability. The results of such a study should facilitate

the production of volumes with optimal characteristics at minimal cost. To achieve this end, this study will examine

the following six hypotheses.

1) Tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover volumes will be more durable when constructed with uncoated, rather than

coated, paper stock.

2) Tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover volumes will be more durable when used on book blocks with less, as opposed to more, bulk. 3) Tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover volumes will be made more durable with increased surface area of adhesive application to the spine.

4) The openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover volumes will be unchanged by the choice of coated or uncoated paper.

5) The openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hard

cover volumes will not be affected by either smaller or

larger book block bulk.

6)The openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hard

cover volumes will be unchanged by the relative area of

adhesive application to the spine of the book block. CHAPTER 3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The preliminary impetus for this study came from Peter

Northover, Director of Publications Services for the

Textbook Branch of the Province of British Columbia, Canada.

Being the largest single purchaser of text books in Canada

($15 - $18 million annually), the Ministry expressed concern over the lack of information available about the performance

characteristics of various text book production methods. In particular, Mr. Northover was interested in the performance

of some adhesive bound hardcover books which had experienced deterioration in the school system. He suggested that the

exploration of this topic would be a service to both the

consumers and producers of textbooks."''

Further investigation into the literature regarding the performance characteristics of adhesive bound, tight backed, hardcover volumes confirmed the fact that very little

research had been done in the area. It also became apparent that the use of adhesive bound textbooks is becoming more widespread. Jerome Frank states in his article "Textbook

'Spec' Changes Temporary but Significant" that while adhesive bound textbooks are still unacceptable in many States (TX,TN,KY,WV), more conscientious testing will facilitate wider acceptance. Indeed, the Book Manufacturers

Institute has only recently incorporated adhesive bound books into their standard for textbook production. This is only on a temporary basis, however, pending the confirm• ation of their ability to perform adequately. The criteria which BMI recommends for the evaluation of adhesive bound

textbooks is outlined in another article by Jerome Frank,

"ACTS Approves Criteria for Field Book Testing." Five

categories of evaluation are recommended, along with numerical ratings and judgment criteria for each category.

The article is particularly interesting within the context of this study, since it is one of the few articles available which deals directly with the assessment of tight backed volumes.

The tumble test has been used in the analysis of binding durability for more than thirty years. The test was initially developed by the United States Testing

Company. Its use was first reported in Tests and Procedures for Books and Book Components. The test was well received by the book manufacturing industry as a much needed source of data. The Book Manufactures Institute Annual Proceedings of 1957, states that:

Tests that measure the strength ... in a book have been developed. One of the methods utilizes a tumbler drum that tumbles the book^and subjects it to a series of falls and impacts. However, it is also clear that the test was not standard• ized, because the report continued to qualify the success of the procedure by stating that:

When a sufficient number of book specimens have been tested by [this] method, minimum levels of acceptable performance can be developed enabling the more general use of these tests for quality control purposes. They too, will soon become , appropriate for specifications of performance.

The American Association (ALA), in its study

The Development of Performance Standards for Library

Binding, Phase I, sought to establish standardized proce• dures for the testing of bound volumes. ALA wanted to emphasize the empirical testing of bound books, over the previous practice of merely evaluating the materials and production methods used in their construction. Furthermore,

ALA established that the octagon shaped tumbling drum "has been shown to have a good correlation to the physical 4 breakdown of books in actual use". By the establishment of

this correlation, the tumble test has become a standard for

the evaluation of the durability of bound volumes.

However, the tumble test has come under fire for not producing as realistic a simulation as might be desirable.

The criticism arose because it "produced results which were too severe... things which would not happen in ordinary use."^ This was initially pointed out by the W. J. Barrow

Research Laboratory and has been corroborated by a number of experts, including Professor Werner Rebsamen of the

Rochester Institute of Technology. Notwithstanding these observations, Rebsamen points out, in his article "Perform• ance Testing with the Universal Book Tester", that "the book tumbler does have its merits and usefulness in testing childrens books and textbooks that are subjected to severe and abnormal abuse.Since this study is geared primarily to the study of the performance of textbook construction, it seems appropriate that the tumble test be utilized. Rebsamen also points out that the tumbler is still widely used for binding evaluations by the book manufacturing industry.

The Universal Book Tester (UBT) was originally developed by the W. J. Barrow Research Laboratory and its operation is outlined in the study Permanence / Durability of the Book: A Two Year Research Program. Rebsamen, in the article "Performance Testing with the Universal Book

Tester", gives a very concise outline of the aims of

Barrow's UBT research project. The Barrow team sought to

reproduce the damage found in books that had undergone binding deterioration through actual usage. Upon inspection of failed books it was found that "the major causes of binding failure were abrasion on the various external areas 7 of the binding... and the failure of the internal hinge."

Thus, the aim of the research program was to "control the action of the book and at the same time, provide abrasive g and internal effects simultaneously."

Its developers rate the UBT as a highly accurate method for testing the durability of case bound books, claiming that "approximately 90% of the failures occurring in naturally used books are duplicated in nearly the same proportions in the UBT."9 The UBT was subsequently adopted as a standard test by the American Library Association in the Development of Performance Standards for Library

Binding, Phase II.

The openability test was initially developed by the

American Library Association in The Development of Per• formance Standards for Library Binding, Phase III.

Regrettably, the test developed by the ALA provided only a very rough measurement of the openability of a bound volume, yielding data in 1/2 inch increments. The limitations of this testing procedure are pointed out by Seija Korhonen in the article "Factors Affecting the Strength of a Book."

She argues that there is a strong correlation between the durability and openability of a book, necessitating the need

for a reliable test to quantify openability. For her

Masters thesis "A Performance Comparison of Oversewn, PVA

Double Fanned, and Cleat-Laced Bindings," Caroline Watson took on the challenge of refining the ALA's openability test. Watson's so called photocopy openability test provides a more precise measurement of volume openability, allowing data to be gathered to 1/64 of an inch intervals.

David Parisi, in his study "A Performance Evaluation of

Rounded and Backed Books vs Square Backed Books" developed a four point degradation to rate the results of the Universal Book Tester and the Tumble Test. Claudia Chaback,

in her Masters thesis "A Performance Comparison Between a

Wide Hinged Construction and the Library Binding

Institute Standard Endpaper Construction", modified this

rating procedure. By defining evaluation criteria on a

five point index, Chaback was able to convert the qual•

itative data yielded by the UBT and tumble tests into quantitative data, applicable to her parametric statistical model. This study will employ Chaback's technique, in

conjunction with a more applicable rating index developed by

BMI and the National Association of State Textbook Admin•

istrators (NASTA), under the auspices of the Advisory

Committee of Textbook Specifications (ACTS). The details and criteria of this rating system are outlined in Jerome

Frank's article "ACTS Approves Criteria for Field Book

Testing."

Information on the composition and characteristics of polyvinyl acetate adhesives was derived from two articles by

Professor Werner Rebsamen "Adhesive Binding Methods and

Techniques" and "Adhesive Binding of Library Books", from the book "Glues Used in Perfect Binding" distributed by

Mueller Martini, and from the article by Tony Clark "Ad• hesives: The Sticking Point." Insight into the actual production of adhesive bound books was provided by E. W.

Palmer's A Course in Bookbinding for Vocational Training,

Henry Gross' Simplified Bookbinding, Professor Werner Rebsamen's five part series "A Study in Simple Binding

Methods" and by James Blaine's article "Bookbinding." NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3

Mr. Peter Northover, Textbook Branch of the Province of British Columbia, Interviewed by , May 1987, Vancouver British Columbia. 2 Book Manufactures Institute. "Proceedings of 27th Annual Convention," (New York: BMI Incorporated, 1959), p. 54. 3Ibid. 4 American Library Association. Library Technology Project. Development of Performance Standards for Library Binding, Phase I, LTP Publications No. 2 (Chicago: American Library Association, 1961), p. 23. ^Werner Rebsamen "Performance testing with the Universal Book Tester" in The New Library Scene (October, 1987), p. 13.

6Ibid.

7lbid_

8lbid.

9rW . J. Barrow Permanence/Durability of the Book A Two-Year Research Program (Richmond Virginia: W. J. Barrow Research Laboratory, 1963), p. 33. CHAPTER 4

DESIGN PARAMETERS AND METHODOLOGY

The experimental program of this study was developed to

provide book manufacturers and consumers with insight into

some of the factors that affect the durability and open-

ability of adhesive bound, tight backed, hardcover text•

books. The program involved the testing and analytical

comparison of three factors: paper stock, area of adhesive

application to the spine, and bulk of the book block. To

date, there has been no experimental data published that

investigates the consequences of these variables on the performance of adhesive bound, tight backed, hardcover text books.

The assessment of the books in this study considered both openability and durability, since each is important in determining the acceptability of the product. Also it is

important to take these factors into account when deciding on the end use of the volume.

Experimental Design

The study was constructed as a blocked and replicated three factor design. The first factor observed was that of book block bulk. The two levels employed were 3/4" and 1 1/2" bulk. The second factor examined was paper stock. The two levels tested were coated and uncoated . The basis weight of the two stocks was kept constant in order to yield comparable results. However, the fact that bulk was kept constant dictated that variation occur both in the number of pages and in the weight of the volumes. The pages per inch of the uncoated stock was 284, while the coated was

417. It should also be noted that the papers available for

consideration exhibited a slight stiffness differential when

tested on the Gurley Stiffness Tester. The uncoated stock proved slightly less flexible when flexed in the direction

of the grain. (This measurement was deemed more relevant

than the cross grain data because the book samples were all produced long grain, a requirement for all NASTA text books.

Accordingly, the openability test caused the paper to flex

in the direction of the grain.) However, the difference between the two was minimal, being only 0.2. (To give this number some context, the difference between the long and

cross grain flexibility of the same sheet was 1.8. Thus,

0.2 represents a minimal differential, but one which should be kept in mind when analyzing the results of this study.)

The composition of the volumes is summarized in figure 2.

The final factor tested was that of the surface area of adhesive applied to the spine of the volume. The three levels examined were a 1 millimeter bead of adhesive on the center of the spine, a three strip application covering a total of 1/2 the area of the spine and a coating of the

entire spine.

These levels produced a total of twelve individual

treatments. To ensure the minimum of extraneous variation,

ten replicates of each treatment were prepared; 12 factors x

10 replicates = 120 bound books.

The dimensions of the volumes tested were 7 1/2 x 9

1/2. They were rounded and backed and comprised of a 50 lb.

basis stock. These specifications were chosen because they

represented the mean specification of tight backed, adhesive

bound, hardcover text books currently on the market.1 (See

figures 3 and 4.)

Book Construction

The text books tested were produced by hand at the book binding laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

This was necessitated by two considerations. First, the mechanized equipment for the production of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover text books was not readily available at RIT or in the Rochester area. Second, the nature of the spine treatments under consideration demanded exacting specifications, which would have been difficult to achieve even had the appropriate machinery been at hand.

Consequently, great care was exercised in order to ensure that a uniform product was produced. FIGURE 2

3/4" 1 1/2" Pages 213 626

Weight - Uncoated 5.4 3.5

Weight - Coated 2.75 2.0

Flexibility - Coated 1.4 1.4

Flexibility - Uncoated 1.6 1.6

Figure 3

BOOK TYPE PREPARATION CHART

3/4" 1 1/2"

ADHESIVE ADHESIVE

TOTAL 1/2 1mm TOTAL 1/2 1mm VOL.

COATED C*y B*y A*y C*z B*z A*z 60

UNCOATED C$y B$y A$y C$z B$z A$z 60

TOTAL: 120

Total Book Treatments: 12 C, B, A = adhesive application :o spine *, $ = paper stock y, z = bulk Key identification example: C*z identifies a book with a total coating of adhesive on its spine, made from coated paper stock, with a bulk of 1 1/2". Figure 4

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF TREATMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION

Paper Stock Book Block Bulk Adhesive Cover

1 mm Bead

3/4" 1/2 Spine*

Total spine

Coated 1 mm Bead

1 1/2" 1/2 Spine

Total Spine

1 mm Bead

3/4" 1/2 Spine

Total spine

Uncoated 1 mm Bead

1 1/2" 1/2 Spine

Total Spine

* This denotes the 3 strip adhesive treatment, covering a total of 1/2 the spine. The materials and procedures utilized during this study- were chosen to reflect or simulate common industry practices used in the production of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover text books. However, due to the nature of manual production, some material substitutions were necessary.

The first step in the production of experimental

samples was to divide the loose sheets into lifts of

requisite bulk. After spine roughening, the sheets were

formed into book blocks by double-fanning, using an

internally plasticized polyvinyl acetate (PVA) adhesive.

(It should be noted that hotmelt adhesives are more commonly used in industrial production, however they are not suited

to manual binding carried out in stages.) A slight round was introduced into the block through the use of a rounded

jogging board. (The same round was used for both the 3/4"

and the 1 1/2" bulks, in order to maintain consistency.)

After the application of adhesive, a gauze strip was wrapped

around the spine, reinforcing the spine as well as helping

to maintain its round. The adhesive was then allowed to

cure for three days.

Once the books were completely dry, a manual rounder- backer was used to create joints on the book block. The

joints were formed at approximately a 45 degree angle, simulating the common joint angle found in commercial textbook production. After the rounding and backing operation, kraft paper was affixed to the spine with PVA adhesive, atop the gauze reinforcement. The book blocks were again allowed to dry before subsequent operations were undertaken.

Meanwhile, book cases were made using a C-grade cover material, which is a dense, heavy and tightly woven sub• strate, (4.0 to 5.0 oz/yd2), qualified to meet all text book

standards. The spine lining inserted into the case was

comprised of Type II material which is a paper reinforced with resins. The Type II material was chosen instead of

kraft paper, which is the industry standard, because of its

greater internal strength. This was done in an effort to minimize the probability of skewed results through material

failures. Animal glue was used for the case making proce• dure.

Casing-in was performed in two steps. First, PVA

adhesive was applied to the spine of the book block, over

the kraft reinforcement, using masks cut from vinyl

sheeting. (See figure 5.) The masks ensured that a uniform pattern of adhesive was applied to the spine, as

called for by the experimental design. The vinyl was used as masking material because of its dimensional stability and

resistance to adhesive buildup, both of which ensured that uniformity of coating was maintained. During the same procedure, adhesive was placed in the joints of the book block to be re-melted during the second stage of the casing in procedure. Finally, the case was brought into firm contact with the spine of the book block. Great care was taken to maintain contact in order to ensure that the tight back would be well bonded.

Figure 5

Vinyl Masks for Adhesive Application

The second step of the casing in procedure secured the

endpapers to the case. This was accomplished using a mixture of PVA and paste. The books were then placed into a

building-in press. Pressure secured and bonded both the

endpapers to the case. Heated building-in irons re-melted

the joint adhesive so that strong joints would be formed. The books were then placed in a press and allowed to cure for 48 hours.

Book Testing

While it is clear that no test can exactly replicate the actual damage a book experiences through use, there are a number of devices available at the Dudley A. Weiss (DAW) book testing laboratory that are able to simulate the various stresses experienced by books under normal and abnormal use. As stated previously, the tests selected for this study were designed to measure durability and open- ability. Of the three tests selected, two were designated to evaluate durability, while the third was a measure of openabi1i ty.

1) Binding Durability

Binding durability was analyzed using two sets of testing apparatuses. The first was the universal book tester (UBT) which "simulates the rough treatment which books often 2 receive" , in order to test how long the book will stay in its binding. It is considered a good indicator of the

"breaking and tearing [resistance] of the internal hinge"3 of a bound volume. W. J. Barrow, of the Barrow Research

Laboratory, which developed the UBT, describes it as follows: The UBT consists of a rectangular book chamber with one side of the bottom rounded to a 1 1/2 inch radius. The chamber is lined with stainless steel fabric to provide abrasion when the chamber is rotated on an inclined plane. The volume receives both impact and abrasion when the apparatus is in operation.

The UBT also produces highly valid results. "Approximately

90% of failures occurring in naturally used books are duplicated in nearly the same proportions in the UBT."5

Indeed, Professor Rebsamen has described the UBT as "the most reliable and realistic testing device for simulating the use or misuse of bound books.

The UBT is able to attain this high degree of validity because it produces hinge destruction in a controlled environment. Hinge failure "does not come so much from the opening and closing actions of the book binding, as from the inertia of the contents continuing in motion after the cover 7 has stopped." This same type of inertia is created when the book contacts the wall of the UBT's rotating chamber.

The second durability test used was the Octagonal

Tumbling Drum, which "simulates wear and damage to bindings when a volume is tossed on a table, dropped on the floor, Q sent down a chute, dropped in a receiving box, etc." The drum is octagonal in shape with one shelf on the inside of the drum. The books slide around the interior until they reach the shelf, which stops their progress momentarily.

However, as the drum continues to turn the books fall from the shelf, simulating the impact which occurs when a book is dropped. This test is considered by many experts to be particularly relevant to the testing of textbooks because they are generally "subjected to severe or abnormal abuse"9.

Seija Korhonen confirms this point in her article "Factors

Affecting the Strength of a Book" when she states that "for school books, durability under blows and tumbles is important.

The Tumble Test has been found to simulate the actual wear on books very closely. "The United States Testing

Company reports that the data obtained with this test correlate well with the actual damage of text books during normal use."!1

The UBT and Tumble tests were conducted in the following manner. Preliminary tests were run in order to determine the test duration required to produce optimal results. This was necessary because too short a duration would have yielded no results, while too long a duration would have destroyed all of the books, hiding any variation which did exist. The duration arrived at for the UBT was 60 minutes (1200 revolutions), while for the tumble tester 200 revolutions was deemed to produce the best result.

2)Evaluation of UBT and Tumble Tested Books

The UBT and Tumble tests, by their very nature, produce qualitative data on the durability of a bound volume.

However, in order to complete the analysis of variance prescribed in the design parameters of this study it was necessary to transform the qualitative data into a quan• titative form. This was achieved through the use of an objective rating system, which ascribed a numerical value to the amount of degradation experienced by each volume.

Initially this study had planned to employ a modified version of the five point rating index developed by Chaback, for the similar purposes. The rating system that she employed was the following:

1) Inferior - split endpapers, loose joints, block hanging loose between cover boards, endpaper separation from book block.

2) Poor - partially split endpaper, loose joints, endpaper coming loose from boards but not more than a quarter inch.

3) Fair - Slight Splits or other damages to endpaper construction, and paper remained adhered to boards, no separation from book block, internal split endpaper.

4) Good - Loose joints, endpapers remained adhered to boards, no separation from book block.

5) Superior j2no damages, no loose joints, good adhesion throughout.

While this rating system (with some minor modifi• cations) would have been appropriate for rating the results of this study, recent interest in the durability of adhesive bound textbooks, by the Book Manufacturers Institute (BMI) and the National Association of State Textbook Administrat• ors (NASTA), prompted the development of "The Official 13

Guidelines for Binding Evaluation." Under the auspices of the Adhesive Binding Committee of Advisory Committee for

Textbook Specifications (ACTS), a five category evaluation system was developed in order to evaluate the durability and performance of adhesive bound textbooks. The categories specified are the following:

Category A Is Tight Back Holding

Category B Joints - What is their Condition

Category C What is the Integrity of the Book Block

Category D Pages - Are Individual Pages Holding

Category E Back Margin - Is^it Reasonable When the Book is Open

Since this study is concerned only with the interaction between the book block and the book case, only categories A and B are relevant for evaluation purposes. However, it seems appropriate to favor the evaluation criteria prescrib• ed by BMI and NASTA, over the rating system developed by

Chaback, since the BMI and NASTA are both concerned with the establishment of industry standards for binding durability.

Also, the ACTS standard addresses the performance of tight backed books directly, making it particularly relevant to the topic at hand. Accordingly, this study chose to evaluate the results of the UBT and tumble tests according to two of the specifications designated by ACTS.

However, in addition to the two categories prescribed by ACTS, a third set of rating criteria, not covered by the

ACTS standard, was created for use in this study. It was designed as an evaluation of the degree of degradation occurring within the book block itself, in terms of internal splitting, during the durability tests. It was deemed to be a relevant measurement because the formation of splits within the book block will tend to lessen the rigidity of the book block as a whole. Consequently, a book with internal splits is less likely to manifest degradation in the other two categories.

The levels of evaluation for categories A, B and C were the following:

Category A: Is the Tight Back Holding?

(1) Unacceptable - complete separation: able to see daylight through the entire backbone; can pass a pencil or letter opener through the shelf back.

(2) Acceptable - partial separation: either cannot see daylight through the length of the shelfback, or an see daylight on only one-half the width of the shelfback.

(3) Superior - no separation: tight, firm glue along the entire width and length of the spine.

Category B: Joints - What is their Condition?

(1) Unacceptable - complete separation front, back or both: able to see daylight through one or both joints; can pass a pencil or letter opener through the joint.

(2) Acceptable - partial separation front, back or both: Cannot see daylight through the joints, but evidence of separation either at the head of foot of the book.

(3) Superior - no separation: tight, |irm glue along the entire length of the book joints.

Category C: Book Block - What is its condition?

(1 Unacceptable - easily visible splits developing on both the front and back of book block, spine roughening pattern easily visible.

(2) Acceptable - partial splits developing on front or back of book block, spine roughening pattern visible at close inspection.

(3) Superior - no splits visible, no roughening pattern in evidence, integrity of book block maintained. After numerical ratings for categories A, B and C were ascribed to each sample, the three values were totalled to yield a final quantitative rating of the qualitative data provided by the UBT and tumble tests.

It should be noted that, as much as possible, material failures were not taken into account in the assessment of binding deterioration. Instead, the books were rated on how well they would have performed had the materials been sound. This position is justified because the aim of this study is to evaluate binding techniques, not materials.

2) Volume Openability

The openability of the volumes was tested with the photo• copier openability test. The test was originally designed by Caroline Watson in the study "A Performance Comparison of

Oversewn, PVA Double Fanned, and Cleat Laced Bindings."''"^

Watson's design was, in turn, an adaptation of the open- ability test designed by the American Library Association

(ALA). The ALA test assessed openability by placing a clear glass test plate, with scored lines at 1/2 inch intervals, over the center spread of the book. A weight was then placed on the plate to give uniform pressure and a visual assessment of the openability was made. The limitation on this test is obvious. The numerical data, being in 1/2 inch increments, were not appropriate for detailed analysis. All that was revealed was if the volume had "poor", "fair" or "superior" openability. Furthermore, this test did not account for the effects on bindmargins created by variations in printing and folding.

Watson solved this problem with the development of the photocopy openability test. The test allows an accurate and precise comparison of a book's ability to lie open. A line is drawn at a uniform distance from the outside edge of the two pages in the center spread of each volume. The center spread is then placed face down on the photocopier, under a uniform two pound weight, and a made. The total distance in the reproduction between the two ruled lines is then measured with an accuracy of 1/64". The numerical measurements yielded from this test were then used to evaluate statistical significance.

Limitations

The limitations to this study were mainly problems of reliability. The fact that only 5 samples per cell were used presented the major problem (5 x 2 x 12 = 120 books), because extraneous variation in one sample has the potential to skew the for the entire treatment. However, the use of small sample sizes was necessary due to limited resources. As a precaution, the raw data was examined to ensure that no obviously skewed readings were present within any one treatment. Also, previous studies have managed to obtain reliable results with the same or smaller sample sizes.

A second problem was that the books were produced by hand, naturally leaving more room for extraneous variation than would automated production. However, this was neces• sitated by the fact that mechanized production could not control accurately the variables that this study sought to test. It is contended, however, that careful control of the production process was able keep the experimental noise to a minimum, yielding representative results.

A further consideration was that material substitutions were required in order to accommodate the manual production process. The most significant substitution was the choice of a PVA adhesive to produce the samples. However, polyvinyl acetate has been shown to provide comparable bonding characteristics to hotmelt adhesives, when the hotmelt is applied under appropriate temperature and viscosity conditions. Consequently, it is contended that the use of PVA furnished a representative simulation of the bonding power of hotmelt adhesive. Furthermore, the use of

PVA is coming into more widespread use for commercial adhesive binding, making its performance of interest in and of itself.

As has been stated above, the tests for durability are widely considered to have significant validity in measuring actual strength. The test for openability is also valid, since it is a direct measurement of that property.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted through the use of two tests. First, a three way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used to test the six null hypotheses. The

ANOVA is used to assign a portion of the total variability within the data set to the individual factors under consideration. This is achieved by calculating and comparing the means for each treatment. If the difference between the means is larger than the calculated 'F' ratio, then the difference is deemed to be the result of something other than naturally occurring variation. In this event the 16 null hypothesis is rejected. For the purposes of this study an alpha rating of 0.05 was used in the calculation of the 'F' ratio. This indicates that any conclusions drawn from the statistical calculations outlined above, have a 95% probability of being correct. (The ANOVA was repeated at the 0.01 level, for the sake of comparison. However, the limited number of replications for each treatment made the

0.05 level more appropriate to the nature of the data.

Cases where the two analyses diverged will be noted as such.) The term "three way" analysis of variance refers to the fact that the test compares the three dimensions of the

3x2x2 experimental matrix simultaneously. Unfortunately the results of an ANOVA are supplied in

"go-no go" form. The test only indicates if there is sufficient justification to reject the null hypothesis. It does not identify which factors are responsible for the rejection of the null. Consequently, a Duncan Multiple

Range Test was used to indicate the factors responsible for variation within the experimental matrix. The Duncan test achieves this by comparing individual sets of means in order to isolate the source of variation.

The observed differences between the means are tested, beginning with the largest versus the smallest... Next, the difference between the largest and the second smallest is computed...- These comparisons are continued until all means have been compared with the largest mean. Finally the difference between the second largest mean and the smallest is computed. This process is continued until all the differences, of all possible pairs have been considered.

Definition of Terms

In the context of this study the term durability denotes the ability of a bound volume to remain in its case, while being subjected to stresses designed to simulate the abuse a book would receive during actual use. It does not address the tensile strength required to remove pages from the book block. This is because tight backing is primarily designed to strengthen the bond between the book block and case, rather than the reinforce the book block directly.

Openability denotes the relative ability of a volume to open and lie flat for optimum readability. Tight backing refers to the practice of adhering the spine of the book block to the inside of the spine of the case in order to enhance durability. The term adhesive binding refers to book blocks prepared by the perfect binding method, where the spine of each signature is ground away before adhesive is applied. This should not be confused with a variety of other methods which leave the

spine more or less intact, for example perfo-bind, perfo- punch or burst binding. NOTES FOR CHAPTER 4

"""Based on personal sampling of adhesive bound hardcover books available in local retail outlets. 2 Werner Rebsamen "Bookbinding Testing Laboratory Evaluates Machinery, Materials, Techniques," in Book Production Industry & Magazine Production (May 1977), p. 64 W. J. Barrow Permanence / Durability of the Book Two-Year Research Program, (Richmond Virginia: W, J. Barrow Research Laboratory, 1963), p. 33.

*lbid.

5lbid.

6Werner Rebsamen "Performance Testing with the Universal Book Tester" in The New Library Scene (October, 1987), p. 13-16.

7)Ibid. g American Library Association. Library Technology Project. Development of Performance Standards for Library Binding, Phase I, LTP Publications No. 2 (Chicago: American Library Association, 1961), p. 58. ^Op Cit

^Seija Korhonen "Factors Affecting the Strength of a Book" in 14th IARGAI Conference, Marbella, Spain (Finland: Graphic Arts Research Institute, 1977), p. 374.

"'""'"American Library Association. Library Tech• nology Project. Development of Performance Standards for Library Binding, Phase I, LTP Publications No. 2 (Chicago: American Library Association, 1961), p. 57. 12 Claudia Chaback "A Performance Comparison between a Wide Hinged Endpaper Construction and the LBI Standard Endpaper Construction" (Master's Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, May 1987), p. 35. Jerome Frank "ACTS Approves Criteria for Field Book Testing in Publishers Weekly (March, 1988), p54-55. Ibid !5„ Caroline Watson "A Performance Comparison of Oversewn, PVA Double Fanned and Cleat-Laced Bindings," (Master's Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, May 1985), p. 39. 16, 'David Anderson et al. Statistics: Concepts and Applications. (St. Paul MN: West Publishing Company, 1986),p. 495.

17Douglas C. Montgomery. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 2nd . (New York; John Wiley and Sons, 1984), p. 66-68. CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND RESULTS

Results of the Photocopy Openability Test

When the data generated by the photocopy openability test were subjected to statistical analysis, the results indicated that two of the three null hypotheses under consideration should be rejected. The Duncan Multiple Range test revealed that the choice of paper stock and the area of adhesive application were statistically significant in determining the openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes. As a result the following two null hypotheses were rejected:

1) Openabi1ity will not be enhanced by the choice of uncoated paper over coated stock.

2) There will be no significant increase in openability with a relative increase in surface area of adhesive application to the spine of a bound volume.

The third factor, bulk, proved not to have a meaningful effect on openability. Consequently, the following null hypothesis was accepted: l)There will be no significant difference in openability between books constructed with less, as opposed to more, bulk.

During the course of experimentation, the coated paper demonstrated somewhat more openability than the uncoated stock. The openability means, calculated by the Duncan test, were 5.6015" and 5.49492" for the coated and uncoated samples respectively. (These measurements were from of a possible total of 7"). Thus the difference between the two means was 0.10664. This result indicates that the variation between the means was relatively slight, since the critical range calculated by the Duncan test was only 0.10527. The critical range is the cutoff for the amount of variation which will be considered statistically significant. It is calculated with reference to the alpha interval specified, in this case 0.05. (When the test was replicated at the

0.01 level, no significance between the means was found.)

Consequently, it would be unwise to generalize too broadly from these results, particularly when one considers the slight stiffness variation between the two stocks under consideration. Thus, the variation is not sufficient to indicate that coated papers always will yield better open- ability than uncoated papers when used in the production of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover books. The flexibility of individual papers of the same basis weight may be effected by fiber type and preparation, groundwood content, coating composition and filler content, to name but a few factors. These considerations make it impossible to determine if the findings generated by the Duncan test are applicable across a wide range of papers, or are simply the result of flexibility variations within papers under consideration. Had the Duncan test produced a stronger result, then it might have been possible to have drawn some more conclusive generalizations from the data.

The second factor, adhesive treatment, also proved to have an effect on openability. The 1 mm bead application yielded significantly better openability than the other two treatments. Indeed, the Duncan test revealed that there was statistically no difference in openability between the three strip and total spine treatments. The means calculated for the 1mm, 3 strip and total treatments were; 5.88847, 5.41406 and 5.34219, respectively. Consequently, the difference between the 1mm treatment and the next closest mean was

0.47441, over 3.6 times the critical range of 0.128929.

This indicates that there is a strong openability premium to be gained from minimal adhesive coverage on the spine of the volume. (See Figure 7.)

General Durability Observations

Initial expectations for the tumble and UBT durability tests were that binding failure would occur quite rapidly, particularly in some of the heavier volumes that had only a light adhesive treatment. Quite the contrary proved to be Q

In uj

Uj £

Q~ —' Cj *

to

K

1 <-1 EH o En

CO

U K •H -J

EH

" to Qj

"C3!

—}- +—j—f—-1—h \—HH-H—1 CDCD^OJOQDCD^rOJOCDCD^raJO

iDCDCDiDa3Lnir)LniDif)^r^^r^^

M C U JZ CD in L true. All the treatments under consideration proved much more durable than initially anticipated. This fact is indicated in the raw data, where the lowest rating awarded was a 6/9 and where the vast majority were in the 8-9 range. Also, there were no cases of joint failure recorded amongst all the samples tested. Indeed, in many cases material failure occurred before binding deterioration. One plausible explanation for this phenomenon is to be found in the adhesive which was used to produce the bound volumes.

An internally plasticized PVA is endowed with excellent bonding properties, as well as the ability to readily absorb shock due to its inherent flexibility. Consequently, the inertia stresses normally experienced during testing are minimized by the flexibility and strength of the adhesive.

As has been mentioned previously, PVA is not the industry standard for the production of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes. It was employed out of necessity, because hotmelt adhesives are not suitable for multi-stage, manual binding procedures. However, PVA and hotmelt are considered to have comparable bonding prop• erties, when hotmelt is applied under the recommended temperature and viscosity conditions.

Universal Book Tester Durability Results

The ANOVA analysis of the results of the UBT test indicated rejection of one of the null hypotheses. The Duncan Multiple Range Test identified adhesive treatment as a significant factor in the determination of volume dura• bility. Consequently, the following null hypothesis was rejected:

DThere will be no significant increase in durability with a relative increase in surface area of adhesive application to the spine of a bound volume.

The other two null hypotheses were accepted because the factors displayed no statistical significance. They were:

1) Durability will not be enhanced by the choice of uncoated paper over coated stock.

2) There will be no significant difference in durability between books constructed with less, as opposed to more, bulk.

The 1mm adhesive treatment proved significantly weaker, with a mean of 7.45, than either the three strip or total treatments, which had means of 8.3 and 8.15 respectively.

(Scores are out of a possible 9 points.) Thus, the difference between the 1mm treatment and the next closest mean was 0.7, 1.76 times the critical range of 0.374929.

Accordingly, this indicates a fairly strong relationship between increased adhesive coverage and durability, at least up to a point.

Bulk was found to be insignificant in determining the durability of the bound product, as was paper stock. The means for the coated and uncoated paper were 8.0 and 7.9333, respectively. Thus the difference in the means, 0.0444, represented only 20.5% of the critical range of 0.324698.

Similarly, the difference in the means for 3/4"(8.0) and

1 1/2"(7.9556) bulk represented only 11.8% of the critical range, 3.74929. Thus, it is clear that neither of these factors was even close to having a significant effect on binding durability.

These results were quite surprising, particularly the latter two. It was expected that the additional weight associated with increased bulk and coated paper stock would have had a profound effect on binding deterioration.

Indeed, it was anticipated that some of the heavier books with minimal adhesive coverage would fail completely after a very few minutes in the UBT. However, the durability of the books proved to be such that in many cases the materials used for production of the samples proved to be less durable than the bindings themselves. This was particularly noticeable with both the cover material and the back lining, both of which demonstrated instances of failure.

Tumble Test Durability Results

When the data obtained from the tumble test were subjected to ANOVA analysis, the results indicated that two of the null hypotheses should be rejected. The Duncan Multiple

Range Test then revealed that the two factors at the root of the variation were bulk and adhesive treatment. Paper stock was found to produce no significant difference. Consequent• ly, the following two null hypotheses were rejected:

1) There will be no significant difference in durability between books constructed with less, as opposed to more, bulk.

2) There will be no significant increase in durability with a relative increase in surface area of adhesive application to the spine of a bound volume.

The results of the statistical analysis indicated that the third null should be accepted. It was the following: l)Durability will not be enhanced by the choice of uncoated paper over coated stock.

The volumes constructed with 3/4" bulk were found to be more durable than their 1 1/2" counterparts. The mean of the former was 8.3667, while that of the latter was 7.6333.

Thus the difference between the two means was 0.7334, 1.8 times the critical range of 0.407258. This indicates that there is a relatively substantial durability benefit to be gained from producing books of smaller bulk. However, it should be kept in mind that these results are not the product of any direct relationship between bulk and the weight of the book block. This contingency can be dis• counted because paper also caused variation in the weight of the sample book blocks. The Duncan Test results, however, characterized paper as an insignificant factor. It should also be noted that these findings directly contradict those yielded by the UBT. However, a plausible explanation for this divergence can be found in the nature of the testing apparatus itself. When books are subjected to testing in the tumble tester, a piece of tape is placed across the fore edge of the volume to limit the amount it may open upon impact. (The standard distance is 2" greater than the bulk of the book.) While tumbling was in progress, a tendency was observed for the larger book blocks to open wider prior to impacting on the fore edge. Indeed, in many cases the volumes stood on their fore edge momentarily, before being carried around by the drum rotation. This same phenomenon was not observed with the books of smaller bulk, possibly due to the fact the 3/4" volumes had a significant• ly smaller total width across the fore edge, making them more prone to flop over upon impact. This circumstance would tend to lessen the inertia stresses experienced by the

3/4" books, thereby increasing their durability performance.

This observation does not negate the validity of the data. As has been noted, the tumble test is widely considered to be an accurate simulation of the abuse which books, particularly text books, undergo. This case is no exception. When books are dropped in actual use, the greater their bulk the greater their tendency to stand on their fore edge. This same phenomenon was not repeated in the UBT because that apparatus does not allow the to open to any significant degree during testing.

When analyzing adhesive treatment, the Duncan Multiple

Range Test indicated that there was statistically no difference in durability between the three strip and total spine treatments. The 1mm bead did exhibit a significant drop in durability, as compared with the other two adhesive treatments. However, the difference between the 1mm mean

(7.55) and the next closest mean (8.05) was 0.5. This was very close to the critical range of 0.498787. In fact, when the Duncan test was repeated at an alpha of 0.01, the significant difference between the 1mm and the three strip treatments was eliminated, although the difference between the 1mm and the total coating remained. The fact that the results of the spine preparation treatments did not produce more conclusive results was quite surprising. Consequently it would be unwise to draw broad generalization from these findings.

Volume Appearance

It should be noted that the various spine treatments produced significant differences in the aesthetic quality of the books produced. This fact is worthy of note because the appearance of a volume is often considered as important as its strength and openability characteristics. The total coating spine treatment produced the most pleasing effect, since the case was tightly held against the spine of the book block. With the three strip treatment the glue strip pattern was visible on the spine of the cover material when the book was flexed open. Consequently, its aesthetic characteristics were still acceptable, but inferior to those produced by the total coating.

The 1mm bead failed to yield a pleasing physical appearance. A glue line was clearly visible in the center of the spine, and it was possible to look down the spine either side of the adhesive strip. This tendency was particularly apparent on the volumes with larger bulk.

Accordingly, the 1mm strip represented the worst aesthetic option. CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study, broadly stated, was to evaluate the durability and openability characteristics of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover text books. To this end, six hypotheses outlined in chapter 2 were tested. The conclu• sions yielded by this experimental program are as follows.

l)Tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes will be more durable when constructed with uncoated, rather than coated, paper stock.

The results of testing indicated that the null hypothesis be accepted with regard to the factor of paper stock. Both the UBT and tumble tests indicated that paper was not a significant determinant of binding durability.

The results of the Duncan Multiple Range Test were quite emphatic in this regard, with the UBT only producing 20.5% of the critical range and the tumble test yielding only 49%.

This result proved to be quite surprising, particularly when one considers that the PPI of the coated paper was 2.5 times that of the uncoated stock and its weight was 1.4 times that of the uncoated. This fact alone should have significantly increased the inertia which is so crucial in the failure of bound products.

2)Tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes will be more durable when constructed with smaller book block bulk.

The UBT and tumble tests yielded contradictory results on this question. The former indicated that bulk was insignificant in relation to durability, since the dif• ference between the means represented only 11.8% of the critical range. Conversely, the results of the tumble test found that the difference between the means was 180% of the critical range, suggesting that bulk did have a significant effect on binding durability. This discrepancy would seem to result from the nature of the tests themselves. As has been outlined in chapters 3, 4 and 5, the tumble test is considered a good indicator of severe and abnormal abuse, beyond the scope of durability tested by the UBT. Thus it would be fair to conclude that while bulk does not play a significant role in the durability of books experiencing normal use, it is an important consideration in the construction of books which undergo severe abuse.

Similar to the results of the paper stock analysis, the overall durability of the volumes tested was much higher than anticipated. It was expected that the increase in bulk, which changed the weight of the of the volumes by a factor of 1.8, would have had a more noticeable effect than was recorded.

3) Tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes will be made more durable with increased surface area of adhesive application to the spine.

For both the UBT and tumble test there proved to be no significant difference between the two of the three levels tested, while the third displayed inferior durability.

There was no difference found between a coating of the entire spine and a three strip application covering half the book block. Nevertheless, the performance of the 1mm bead proved to be inferior to the other two. Consequently, it may be concluded that binding durability is enhanced by an increase in the area of adhesive application, up to a point, after which any increase in durability becomes statistically insignificant. The results of this study indicate that the optimal point for adhesive treatment lies somewhere near a

1/2 coating of the spine. Further study is needed to confirm if this amount of coating and pattern is indeed optimal.

4) The openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes will be unchanged by the choice of coated or uncoated paper. The data produced by this study indicated that the choice of paper did have a statistically significant effect on openability when evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05.

However, a comparison between the critical range and the difference between the means revealed that the result was very close to the cutoff. in fact, when the statistical analysis was replicated a the 0.01 alpha level, no statis• tical significance was found to exist.

When one considers this, in conjunction with the fact that the papers tested exhibited a slight variation in stiffness, it would be improper to conclude that coated paper necessarily produces superior openability. Rather, the appropriate would be that between the papers actually tested, the coated stock displayed superior openability.

5)The openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hardcover volumes will not be affected by either smaller or larger book block bulk.

The results of this study indicate that this hypothesis should be accepted. The openability test revealed that bulk had no significant effect on openability.

6)The openability of tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover volumes will be unchanged by the relative area of adhesive application to the spine of the book block. Surface area of adhesive application was found to have some significant effect on openability. Similar to the durability results, there was a statistical difference apparent between the 1mm treatment and the other two treatments. However, no variation was found between the 3 strip and the total treatments. Consequently, one may conclude that as the surface area of adhesive application increases, openability decreases up to a point where the difference becomes statistically insignificant.

General Conclusions

Adhesive treatment creates an inverse relationship between durability and openability. As the area of application was increased, durability increased at the expense of open- ability. This relationship, however, is not linear. The increase from a 1mm treatment to a 3 strip application covering half the spine produces a relatively greater differential than from the 3 strip treatment to a coating of the entire spine.

Paper stock was found to be insignificant in terms of durability and of marginal significance with regard to openability. However, the applicability of these con• clusions outside the parameters of this study remains to be seen. There are a number of indications that the polyvinyl acetate adhesive used to prepare the samples may have enhanced the durability of the samples beyond what could normally be expected from mechanized production using hotmelt. However, the results are representative of hotmelt performance when it is applied under recommended conditions.

Similarly it is impossible to determine if the difference found in openability is the result of the factors under study, or the product of the minimal stiffness variation between the individual paper samples. Had the statistical analysis not produced such a marginal result, it would have been possible to reach a more conclusive interpretation.

It may be safely concluded that book block bulk does not have a significant effect on openability. Its effect on durability proved to be insignificant under testing designed to simulate normal use conditions. However, under con• ditions of severe abuse, increased bulk will tend to decrease durability.

Perhaps the most important insight to be gained from this study is the fact that with the use of the appropriate construction techniques, other sources of variability within the components can be mitigated or eliminated. This assertion is well justified when one considers the sur• prising durability present in all the book treatments tested. One may conclude that it is possible to produce highly durable tight backed, adhesive bound, hard cover textbooks which possess good openability characteristics, provided the proper construction techniques and materials are used. CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

As has been mentioned previously, the demands of manual production dictated that the sample books be constructed using a polyvinyl acetate adhesive. It has also been noted that the samples produced with PVA adhesive displayed great durability characteristics. This fact leads to two potential areas for further study. The first would be a comparison of the properties of different polyvinyl acetate adhesive formulations. The second and perhaps more relevant topic would be to correlate how closely books produced with

PVA under laboratory conditions correlate with those produced mechanically using both PVA and hotmelt.

The limited number of replications utilized by this study served as a limiting factor to the conclusions that could be drawn. This circumstance was necessitated by a limitation of available resources. With such a small sample size, one skewed sample may have far reaching effects for the data within a particular treatment. Thus there would be considerable merit in replication of this study in order to confirm its conclusions. The limitation of resources also dictated that only a limited number of factoral levels could be examined.

Consequently, it would be valuable to replicate this study using more levels of each factor, thereby giving a better

indication of the distribution of possible effects. BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Library Association. Library Technology Project. Development of Performance Standards for Library Binding, Phase I. LTP Publications No. 2. Chicago: American Library Association, 1961.

American Library Association. Library Technology Project. Development of Performance Standards for Library Binding, Phase II. LTP Publications No. 10. Chicago: American Library Association, 1966.

Anderson, D., Sweeney, D., Williams, T. Statistics: Concepts and Applications. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1986.

Barrow, W. J. Permanence/Durability of the Book: A Two- Year Research Program. Richmond Virginia: W. J. Barrow Research Laboratory, 1963.

Blaine, James B. Bookbinding. New York: Freund Publishing Co., Inc.,19(7).

Book Manufactures Institute. "Proceedings of 27th Annual Convention." New York: BMI Incorporated, 1959.

Chaback, Claudia. "A Performance Comparison Between a Wide Hinged Endpaper Construction and the Library Binding Institute Standard Endpaper Construction." Master's Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, May 1987.

Clark, Tony. "Adhesives: The Sticking Point" in British Printer Vol. 100, No. 6, June 1987.

Frank, Jerome. "ACTS Approves Criteria for Field Book Testing" in Publishers Weekly, March 18, 1987.

Frank, Jerome. "Textbook 'Spec' Changes: Temporary but Significant" in Publishers Weekly, Vol. 232, No. 8, Aug. 21, 1987. Gross, Henry. Simplified Bookbinding. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1976.

Korhonen, Seija. "Factors Affecting the Strength of a Book" 14th IARIGAI Conference, Marbella, Spain. Finland: Graphic Arts Research Institute, 1977. Northover, Peter. Textbook Branch of the Province of British Columbia. Interviewed by author. May 1987. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Palmer, E. w. A Course in Bookbinding for Vocational Training. New York: Employing Bookbinders of America, Inc., 1927.

Parisi, David. "A Performance Evaluation of Rounded and Backed Books vs. Square Backed Books. Master's Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, May 1983.

Rebsamen, Werner. "Adhesive Binding Methods and Tech• niques." in Book Production Industry, March 1978.

Rebsamen, Werner. "Adhesive Binding of Library Books." in The New Library Scene, January / February 1983

Rebsamen, Werner. "Bookbinding Testing Laboratory Evaluates Machinery, Materials, Techniques." in Book Production Industry & Magazine Production, May 1977.

Rebsamen, Werner. "Performance Testing with the Universal Book Tester" in The New Library Scene, October, 1987.

Rebsamen, Werner. A Study of Simple Binding Methods." A five part series in The Library Scene, June 1979—June 198 0 .

United States Testing Company. Tests and Procedures for Books and Book Components. Hoboken, NJ: United States Testing Co., 1957.

Watson, Caroline. "A Performance Comparison of Oversewn, PVA Double Fanned and Cleat-Laced Bindings." Master's Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, May 1985. APPENDICES APPENDIX A

TEST DATA TABLES * y SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0

B 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 c 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

* z SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

B 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

C 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 9.0

$ y SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5.0

A 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

B 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0

C 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

$ z SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 7.0 8.0 5.0 6.0 8.0

B 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.0

C 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 Table 2

TUMBLE TEST SUM DATA TABLE

* Y SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 8.0

B 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

C 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

* Z SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 7.0

B 7.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 5.0

C 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.0

$ y SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 6.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 8.0

B 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 9.0

c 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 9.0

$ z SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

B 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0

c 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 SAMPLE

A 5.828125 5.84375 5.859375 5.796875 5.859375

B 5.65625 5.484375 5.5625 5.296875 5.484375

C 5. 5625 5.546875 5.59375 5.625 5.5

SAMPLE

1 2 3 4 5

A 5.9375 6.09375 6.21875 6.015625 5.8125

B 5.203125 5.125 5.125 5.359375 5.609375

C 5.171875 5.65625 5.25 5.65625 5.3125

$y SAMPLE 2

A 5.734375 5.875 6.046875 5.625 5.828125

B 5.6875 5.484375 5.46875 5.546875 5.640625

C 5.328125 5.4375 5.34375 5.3125 5.453125

$ z SAMPLE 2 3 4

A 6.015625 5.984375 6.015625 5.96875 6 .046875

B 5. 390625 5.28125 5.515625 5.125 5.234375

C 5.015625 5.09375 4.921875 4.796875 5.265625 CRITERIA SAMPLE

A*y 1 2 3 4

1 2 2 2 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 7 7 7 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B*y 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C*y 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 2 2

Total 9 9 8 8

1 = Is tight back holding?

2 = Joints - What is their condition? CRITERIA SAMPLE

A*2 1 2 4 5

1 1 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 6 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B*z 1 2 3 5

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C*z 1 5

1 3 3

2 3 3

3 2 3

Total 8 9

Criterion 1 = Is tight back holding?

Criterion 2 = Joints - What is their condition? CRITERIA SAMPLE

A$y 1 2 3 4 5

1 3 3 3 3 2

2 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2 3

Total 8 8 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B$y 1 2 3 4 5

1 3 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 3 2

Total 8 8 8 9 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C$y 1 2 3 4 5

1 3 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8 8 8

Criterion 1 = Is tight back holding?

Criterion 2 = Joints - What is their condition? CRITERIA SAMPLE

A$z 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 1 1

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 3 2

Total 7 8 7 6

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B$z 1 2 4

1 3 3 3

2 3 3 3

3 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C$z 1 2

1 3 3

2 3 3

3 2 3

Total 8 9

Criterion 1 = Is tight back holding?

Criterion 2 = Joints - What is their condition? CRITERIA SAMPLE

A*y 1 2 3 4

1 3 2 3 1

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 3 2 2

Total 8 8 8 6

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B*y 2 3 4

1 2 3 3

2 3 3 3

3 3 3 3

Total 8 9 9

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C*y 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3

Total 9 9 9 9

Criterion 1 = Is tight back holding?

Criterion 2 = Joints - What is their condition? CRITERIA SAMPLE

A*z 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 2 2

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 1 1

Total 8 8 6 6

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B*z 1 2 4

1 3 3 2

2 3 3 3

3 1 2 1

Total 7 8 6

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C*z 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8 8 CRITERIA SAMPLE

A$y 1 2 3 4

1 1 2 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 3 2

Total 6 7 9 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B$y 2 3 4

1 3 3 3

2 3 3 3

3 3 3 2

Total 9 9 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C$y 1 2 3 4

1 2 2 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 2

Total 8 8 9 8 CRITERIA SAMPLE

A$z 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

B$z 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3

3 2 2 2 2

Total 8 8 8 8

CRITERIA SAMPLE

C$z 1 2 3 4

1 3 3 3 3

2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 8 Total 8 8 8 APPENDIX B

STATISTICAL TEST RESULTS Factor DF Type I SS Type III SS F Value PR>F

Paper 1 0.17060001 0.17060001 4.13 0.0471

Bulk 1 0.11588516 0.11588516 2.80 0.0998

Adhesive 2 3.52433673 3.52433673 42.62 0.0001

Critical Value: 14.0060

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS

Alpha=0.05 DF=55 MSE=0.0413443

Duncan Grouping Mean N Critical Range

Factor: Paper

Uncoated 1.50508 30 0.10527 Coated 1.39844 30

Factor: Bulk

1 1/2" 1.49571 30 0.10527 3/4" 1.40781 30

Factor: Adhesive

Total 1.65781 0.128929 1.58594 1/2 0.135562 1.11153 Table 13

ANOVA RESULTS FOR UBT DURABILITY TEST

Alpha Risk 0.05

Factor DF Type I SS Type III SS F Value PR>F

Paper 1 0 . 06666667 0 .04444444 0.11 0.7380

Bulk 1 0 .00000000 0.00000000 0.00 1.0000

Adhesive 2 8.23333333 8.23333333 10.47 0.0001 Critical Value: 7.8723

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS

Alpha=0.05 DF=55 MSE=0.393333

Duncan Grouping Mean N Critical Range

Factor: Paper

Coated 8.0000 30 0.324698 Uncoated 7.9333 30

Factor: Bulk

3/4" 8.000 30 0.374929 1 1/2" 7.9596 30

Factor: Adhesive

Total 8 . 3000 20 0.397672 1/2 8.1500 20 0 . 41813 7.4500 Factor DF Type I SS Type III SS F Value PR>F

Paper 1 0.60000000 0 .60000000 0.97 0.3291

Bulk 1 8 . 06666667 8.06666667 13.04 0.0007

Adhesive 2 7.30000000 7.30000000 5.90 0.0048

Critical Value: 9.8329

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS

Alpha=0.05 DF=55 MSE=0.618788

Duncan Grouping Mean N Critical Range

Factor: Paper

Uncoated 8.1000 30 0.407258 Coated 7.9000 30

Factor: Bulk

3/4" 8 . 3667 30 0.407258 1 1/2 7.6333 30

Factor: Adhesive

Total 8.4000 0.498787 1/2 8.0500 0.524448 7 . 5500 Factor DF Type I SS Type III SS F Value PR>F

Paper 1 0.17060001 0.17060001 4.13 0.0471

Bulk 1 0.11588516 0.11588516 2.80 0.0998

Adhesive 2 3 . 52433673 3 . 52433673 42.62 0.0001

Critical Value: 14.0060

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS

Alpha=0.01 DF=55 MSE=0.0413443

Duncan Grouping Mean N Critical Range

Factor: Paper

Uncoated 1.50508 30 0.140119 Coated 1.39844 30

Factor: Bulk

1 1/2" 1.49571 30 0 .140119 3/4" 1.40781 30

Factor: Adhesive

Total 1.65781 0.17161 1/2 1. 58594 0.178902 1.11153 Factor DF Type I SS Type III SS F Value PR>F

Pape r 1 0.06666667 0 .04444444 0.17 0.7380

Bulk 1 0 .00000000 0.00000000 0.00 1.0000

Adhesive 2 8 . 23333333 8 .23333333 10 . 47 0.0001

Critical Value: 7.8723

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS

Alpha=0.01 DF=55 MSE=0.393333

Duncan Grouping Mean N Critical Range

Factor: Paper

Coated 8.0000 30 0.432185 Uncoated 7.9333 30

Factor: Bulk

3/4" 8 .000 30 0 . 499044 1 1/2" 7 .9596 30

Factor: Adhesive

Total 8 .3000 20 0.529316 1/2 8.1500 20 0.551808 7.4500 Factor DF Type I SS Type III SS F Value PR>F

Pape r 1 0.6000000 0.60000000 0 .97 0.3291

Bulk 1 8 . 0666667 8.06666667 13.04 0 .0007

Adhesive 2 7.30000000 7 . 30000000 5.90 0.0048

Critical Value: 9.8329

DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS

Alpha=0.01 DF=55 MSE=0.618788

Duncan Grouping Mean N Critical Range

Factor: Paper

Uncoated 8.1000 30 0.542076 Coated 7.9000 30

Factor: Bulk

3/4" 8.3667 30 0.542076 1 1/2 7.6333 30

Factor: Adhesive

Total 8 .4000 0.663905 1/2 8 .0500 0.692115 7.5500