Richard Adams


Adhesive bookbinding, a method of holding trimmed pages together in a book using hotmelt glue, offers rapid binding and curing time, but has the disadvantage of poor glue penetration into the paper edges. A weak binding will result unless good linkage can be made between paper and glue, which is the objective of spine-roughening treatments. Eight spine-roughening treatments from three manufacturers were compared on an uncoated and a coated paper stock, against a control treatment of trimmed paper. Treatments were studied by light- and scanning electron microscopic examination of paper edges and by measurement of the mean page-pull values based on samples of 30 or more page-pulls. The results were compared with four hypotheses concerning bookbinding strength. First, when 95 percent confidence intervals were compared, different spine-roughening treatments were found to produce different bookbinding strengths, as measured by mean page-pull value. Specifically, almost all of the treatments produced higher page-pull values than the control, showing that these roughening treatments increased book strength. Some treatments produced significantly higher page-pull values than others, indicating that some roughening treatments were better than others for binding the two papers studied. The results of these tests are summarized in the table at the top of the next page. Secondly, comparing mean page-pull values ranked on the uncoated stock with those of the coated stock, the relatively low correlation of 0.66 indicated that a spine-roughening treatment appropriate for one kind of paper may not be suitable for another kind of paper. One treatment produced the highest page-pull value on both papers, however, indicating that its edge geometry produced a strong bond in both papers studied. Table of Spine-Roughening Treatments with Page-Pull Values and Duncan Groupings. Ranked by Uncoated Paper: (Treatment, Mean Page-Pull Value, Duncan1 Groupings): ((Control) #1, 2.12 lb/in, F), (#48, 2.36, F E), (#2, 2.62, D E), (#16, 2.88, D C), (#24, 3.14, B C), (#20, 3.26, B), (#3, 3.34, B), (#30, 3.42, B), (#10 3.74 A). Ranked by Coated Paper: (Treatment, Mean Page-Pull Value, Duncan1 Groupings): ((Control) #1, 0.74, E), (#2, 0.78, E), (#30, 0.95, D), (#48, 1.09, D C), (#3, 1.16, C), (#20, 1.20, C), (#16, 1.36, B), (#24, 1.43, B), (#10, 1.61, A). 1 Duncan groupings indicate means which are not significantly different. Thirdly, two page-pull testers commonly used to measure page pull were compared using the Mandrell Sensitivity Analysis, which considers sensitivity to the measured attribute along with consistency of measurement. The Martini Tester was shown to be approximately 1 .5 times, or barely significantly, more sensitive than the Moffett Tester. Fourthly, three spine-roughening treatments were compared for book strength vs. production speed. Some treatments-those in which the edge-weakening effect of pattern undercutting was apparent produced higher page-pull values as production speed increased

Library of Congress Subject Headings

Bookbinding; Book spines; Adhesives, Hot melt

Publication Date


Document Type


Department, Program, or Center

School of Photographic Arts and Sciences (CIAS)


Rebsamen, W.


Note: imported from RIT’s Digital Media Library running on DSpace to RIT Scholar Works in December 2013.

Physical copy available from RIT's Wallace Library at Z269.5 .A323 1988


RIT – Main Campus