Composite light weight gypsum wallboard

Yu , et al. March 12, 2

Patent Grant RE44070

U.S. patent number RE44,070 [Application Number 13/525,252] was granted by the patent office on 2013-03-12 for composite light weight gypsum wallboard. This patent grant is currently assigned to United States Gypsum Company. The grantee listed for this patent is Weixin D. Song, Qiang Yu. Invention is credited to Weixin D. Song, Qiang Yu.


United States Patent RE44,070
Yu ,   et al. March 12, 2013

Composite light weight gypsum wallboard

Abstract

The invention provides a light weight composite gypsum board including a foamed low density set gypsum core, a top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer and a bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer, a top cover sheet bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer, and a bottom cover sheet bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer. The foamed low density set gypsum core is prepared having a density of less than about 30 pcf using soap foam in the gypsum-containing slurry. The combination of components provide a composite gypsum board having light weight and high strength.


Inventors: Yu; Qiang (Grayslake, IL), Song; Weixin D. (Vernon Hills, IL)
Applicant:
Name City State Country Type

Yu; Qiang
Song; Weixin D.

Grayslake
Vernon Hills

IL
IL

US
US
Assignee: United States Gypsum Company (Chicago, IL)
Family ID: 47780591
Appl. No.: 13/525,252
Filed: June 15, 2012

Related U.S. Patent Documents

Application Number Filing Date Patent Number Issue Date
11449177 Jun 8, 2010 7731794
11445906 Jun 2, 2006
60688839 Jun 9, 2005
Reissue of: 11537395 Sep 29, 2006 7736720 Jun 15, 2010

Current U.S. Class: 428/156; 428/703
Current CPC Class: C04B 28/14 (20130101); C04B 28/14 (20130101); C04B 14/42 (20130101); C04B 18/24 (20130101); C04B 22/16 (20130101); C04B 24/226 (20130101); C04B 24/383 (20130101); C04B 28/14 (20130101); C04B 14/42 (20130101); C04B 18/24 (20130101); C04B 22/16 (20130101); C04B 24/383 (20130101); C04B 2103/408 (20130101); Y02W 30/97 (20150501); C04B 2111/0062 (20130101); Y02W 30/91 (20150501); Y10T 428/24479 (20150115)
Current International Class: B32B 3/26 (20060101); B32B 13/00 (20060101); C04B 28/14 (20060101)

References Cited [Referenced By]

U.S. Patent Documents
1500452 July 1924 Haggerty
1702729 February 1929 Hite
1769519 July 1930 King
1868671 July 1932 Nelson
1937472 November 1933 Ericson
1953589 April 1934 Camp
1971900 August 1934 Cerveny et al.
2078199 April 1937 King
2083961 June 1937 New
2207339 July 1940 Camp
2213603 September 1940 Young et al.
2322194 June 1943 King
2340535 February 1944 Jenkins
2342574 February 1944 Denning
2388543 November 1945 Hoggatt
2516632 June 1950 Kesler et al.
2526066 October 1950 Croce
2698818 January 1955 Staerkle et al.
2733238 January 1956 Kerr et al.
2744022 May 1956 Croce
2803575 August 1957 Riddell et al.
2845417 July 1958 Kesler et al.
2853394 September 1958 Riddell et al.
2871146 January 1959 Etheridge
2884413 April 1959 Kerr et al.
3179529 April 1965 Hikey et al.
3260027 July 1966 Page et al.
3359146 December 1967 Lane et al.
3382636 May 1968 Green
3423238 January 1969 Weiland
3454456 July 1969 Willey
3459571 August 1969 Shannon
3513009 May 1970 Austin et al.
3573947 April 1971 Kinkade
3649319 March 1972 Smith
3666581 May 1972 Lane
3674726 July 1972 Kirk
3719513 March 1973 Bragg et al.
3741929 June 1973 Burton
3797758 March 1974 Cherdron
3830687 August 1974 Re et al.
3847630 November 1974 Compernass et al.
3908062 September 1975 Roberts
3913571 October 1975 Bayer et al.
3944698 March 1976 Dierks et al.
3957715 May 1976 Lirones et al.
3981831 September 1976 Markusch et al.
3988199 October 1976 Hillmer et al.
3989534 November 1976 Plunguian et al.
3993822 November 1976 Knauf et al.
4009062 February 1977 Long
4011392 March 1977 Rudolph et al.
4019920 April 1977 Burkard et al.
4021257 May 1977 Bernett
4051291 September 1977 Long
4061611 December 1977 Glowaky et al.
4065413 December 1977 MacInnis et al.
4073658 February 1978 Ohtani et al.
4097423 June 1978 Dieterich
4133784 January 1979 Otey et al.
4159302 June 1979 Greve et al.
4174230 November 1979 Hashimoto et al.
4184887 January 1980 Lange et al.
4190547 February 1980 Mahnke et al.
4195110 March 1980 Dierks et al.
4233368 November 1980 Baehr et al.
4234345 November 1980 Fassle
4237260 December 1980 Lange et al.
4265979 May 1981 Baehr et al.
4309391 January 1982 O'Neill
4311554 January 1982 Herr
4327146 April 1982 White
4328178 May 1982 Kossatz
4392896 July 1983 Sakakibara
4394411 July 1983 Krull et al.
4451649 May 1984 Teubner et al.
4487864 December 1984 Bermudez et al.
4518652 May 1985 Willoughby
4533528 August 1985 Zascalicky
4613627 September 1986 Sherman et al.
4618642 October 1986 Schoenherr
4624574 November 1986 Mills et al.
4640864 February 1987 Porter
4659385 April 1987 Costopoulos et al.
4725477 February 1988 Kole et al.
4748771 June 1988 Lehnert et al.
4753977 June 1988 Merrill
4837314 June 1989 Eastman
4842786 June 1989 Betzner
4853085 August 1989 Johnstone et al.
4939192 July 1990 T'sas
4965031 October 1990 Conroy
4966739 October 1990 Stipek et al.
5037929 August 1991 Rajagopalan et al.
5085929 February 1992 Bruce et al.
5093093 March 1992 Koslowski
5114617 May 1992 Smetana et al.
5116671 May 1992 Bruce et al.
5120355 June 1992 Imai
5135805 August 1992 Sellers et al.
5154874 October 1992 Koslowski
5207830 May 1993 Cowan et al.
5227100 July 1993 Koslowski et al.
5256222 October 1993 Shepherd et al.
5294255 March 1994 Smetana et al.
5302308 April 1994 Roe
5342566 August 1994 Schafer et al.
5385607 January 1995 Kiesewetter et al.
5395438 March 1995 Baig et al.
5401588 March 1995 Garvey et al.
5449533 September 1995 Morizane
5534059 July 1996 Immordino, Jr.
5542358 August 1996 Breslauer
5558710 September 1996 Baig
5573333 November 1996 Dahlman
5575840 November 1996 DeWacker
5575844 November 1996 Bradshaw
5595595 January 1997 Glenn
5643510 July 1997 Sucech
5660465 August 1997 Mason
5683625 November 1997 Berthiaume et al.
5683635 November 1997 Sucech et al.
5718758 February 1998 Breslauer
5733367 March 1998 Soeda et al.
5746822 May 1998 Espinoza et al.
5798010 August 1998 Richards et al.
5798425 August 1998 Albrecht et al.
5810956 September 1998 Tanis et al.
5817262 October 1998 Englert
5876563 March 1999 Greenwood
5879825 March 1999 Burke et al.
5911818 June 1999 Baig
5922447 July 1999 Baig
5962119 October 1999 Chan
6051700 April 2000 Wang
6054088 April 2000 Alhamad
6059444 May 2000 Johnson et al.
6102995 August 2000 Hutchings et al.
6110271 August 2000 Skaggs et al.
6110575 August 2000 Haga
6162288 December 2000 Kindt et al.
6162839 December 2000 Klauck et al.
6171388 January 2001 Jobbins
6221521 April 2001 Lynn et al.
6227186 May 2001 Seidl et al.
6228497 May 2001 Dombeck
6228914 May 2001 Ford et al.
6231970 May 2001 Anderson et al.
6241815 June 2001 Bonen
6290769 September 2001 Carkner
6299970 October 2001 Richards et al.
6309740 October 2001 Shu et al.
6319312 November 2001 Luongo
6340388 January 2002 Luongo
6340389 January 2002 Klus
6342284 January 2002 Yu et al.
6387171 May 2002 Taylor et al.
6387172 May 2002 Yu et al.
6391958 May 2002 Luongo
6398864 June 2002 Przybysz et al.
6406535 June 2002 Shintome
6406537 June 2002 Immordino
6409819 June 2002 Ko
6409824 June 2002 Veeramasuneni et al.
6409825 June 2002 Yu et al.
6443258 September 2002 Putt et al.
6475313 November 2002 Peterson et al.
6481171 November 2002 Yu et al.
6485821 November 2002 Bruce et al.
6524679 February 2003 Hauber et al.
6533854 March 2003 Kesselring et al.
6569541 May 2003 Martin et al.
6613424 September 2003 Putt et al.
6632550 October 2003 Yu et al.
6641658 November 2003 Dubey
6673144 January 2004 Immordino, Jr. et al.
6680127 January 2004 Capps
6706112 March 2004 Sironi et al.
6706128 March 2004 Sethuraman
6711872 March 2004 Anderson
6743830 June 2004 Soane et al.
6746781 June 2004 Francis et al.
6773639 August 2004 Moyes et al.
6774146 August 2004 Savoly et al.
6777517 August 2004 Albrecht et al.
6780356 August 2004 Putt et al.
6780903 August 2004 Peltonen et al.
6783587 August 2004 Sethuraman et al.
6800131 October 2004 Yu et al.
6814799 November 2004 Sasage et al.
6822033 November 2004 Yu et al.
6831118 December 2004 Munzenberger
6832652 December 2004 Dillenbeck et al.
6841232 January 2005 Tagge et al.
6846357 January 2005 Reddy et al.
6869474 March 2005 Perez-Pena et al.
6878321 April 2005 Hauber et al.
6893752 May 2005 Veeramasuneni et al.
6902797 June 2005 Pollock et al.
6964704 November 2005 Cox et al.
6983821 January 2006 Putt et al.
7048794 May 2006 Tagge et al.
7056582 June 2006 Carbo et al.
7090883 August 2006 Phipps
7101426 September 2006 Tagge et al.
7105587 September 2006 Tagge et al.
7172403 February 2007 Burke
7217754 May 2007 Koloski et al.
7244304 July 2007 Yu et al.
7285586 October 2007 Helbling et al.
7347895 March 2008 Dubey
7381261 June 2008 Nelson
7413603 August 2008 Miller et al.
7422638 September 2008 Trksak et al.
7425236 September 2008 Yu et al.
7455728 November 2008 Losch et al.
7524386 April 2009 George et al.
7544242 June 2009 Liu et al.
7572328 August 2009 Lettkeman et al.
7572329 August 2009 Liu et al.
7608347 October 2009 Lettkeman et al.
7637996 December 2009 Blackburn et al.
7644548 January 2010 Guevara et al.
7731794 June 2010 Yu et al.
7736431 June 2010 Bui
7754006 July 2010 Liu et al.
7758980 July 2010 Yu et al.
7767019 August 2010 Liu et al.
7771851 August 2010 Song et al.
7776462 August 2010 Liu et al.
7803226 September 2010 Wang et al.
7811685 October 2010 Wang et al.
7819993 October 2010 Seki et al.
7849648 December 2010 Tonyan et al.
7849649 December 2010 Tonyan et al.
7849650 December 2010 Tonyan et al.
7851057 December 2010 Englert et al.
7892472 February 2011 Veeramasuneni et al.
7932193 April 2011 Kajander
7935223 May 2011 Cao et al.
7964034 June 2011 Yu et al.
8133357 March 2012 Cao et al.
8142914 March 2012 Yu et al.
8197952 June 2012 Yu et al.
2001/0001218 May 2001 Luongo
2002/0017222 February 2002 Luongo
2002/0096278 July 2002 Foster et al.
2002/0112651 August 2002 Yu et al.
2003/0019176 January 2003 Anderson
2003/0084980 May 2003 Seufert et al.
2003/0092784 May 2003 Tagge et al.
2003/0138614 July 2003 Leclercq
2003/0150360 August 2003 Huntsman et al.
2003/0175478 September 2003 Leclercq
2004/0005484 January 2004 Veeramasuneni et al.
2004/0026002 February 2004 Weldon et al.
2004/0045481 March 2004 Sethuraman et al.
2004/0055720 March 2004 Torras, Sr. et al.
2004/0065232 April 2004 Lykke
2004/0092190 May 2004 Bruce et al.
2004/0092625 May 2004 Pollock et al.
2004/0107872 June 2004 Matsuyama et al.
2004/0121152 June 2004 Toas
2004/0131714 July 2004 Burke
2004/0149170 August 2004 Moran
2004/0152379 August 2004 McLarty, III et al.
2004/0231916 November 2004 Englert et al.
2004/0242861 December 2004 Kightlinger et al.
2004/0244646 December 2004 Larsen et al.
2005/0019618 January 2005 Yu et al.
2005/0126437 June 2005 Tagge et al.
2005/0142348 June 2005 Kajander et al.
2005/0150427 July 2005 Liu et al.
2005/0181693 August 2005 Kajander
2005/0191465 September 2005 Mayers et al.
2005/0223949 October 2005 Bailey, Jr. et al.
2005/0241541 November 2005 Hohn et al.
2005/0250888 November 2005 Lettkeman et al.
2005/0263925 December 2005 Heseltine et al.
2005/0266225 December 2005 Currier et al.
2005/0281999 December 2005 Hoffmann et al.
2006/0029785 February 2006 Wang et al.
2006/0054060 March 2006 Dubey
2006/0090674 May 2006 Fukuda et al.
2006/0150868 July 2006 Spickemann et al.
2006/0162839 July 2006 Seki et al.
2006/0278127 December 2006 Liu et al.
2006/0278128 December 2006 Liu et al.
2006/0278129 December 2006 Liu et al.
2006/0278132 December 2006 Yu et al.
2006/0278133 December 2006 Yu et al.
2006/0280898 December 2006 Lettkeman et al.
2006/0280899 December 2006 Liu et al.
2007/0022913 February 2007 Wang et al.
2007/0032393 February 2007 Patel et al.
2007/0048490 March 2007 Yu et al.
2007/0056478 March 2007 Miller et al.
2007/0082170 April 2007 Colbert et al.
2007/0102237 May 2007 Baig
2007/0221098 September 2007 Wolbers et al.
2007/0251628 November 2007 Yu
2007/0255032 November 2007 Bichler et al.
2008/0000392 January 2008 Blackburn et al.
2008/0066651 March 2008 Park
2008/0070026 March 2008 Yu et al.
2008/0087366 April 2008 Yu et al.
2008/0090068 April 2008 Yu
2008/0148997 June 2008 Blackburn et al.
2008/0152945 June 2008 Miller et al.
2008/0190062 August 2008 Engbrecht et al.
2008/0202415 August 2008 Miller et al.
2008/0227891 September 2008 Jarvie et al.
2008/0299413 December 2008 Song et al.
2008/0308968 December 2008 Immordino, Jr.
2009/0010093 January 2009 Sethuraman et al.
2009/0011207 January 2009 Dubey
2009/0038248 February 2009 Koslowski
2009/0053544 February 2009 Sethuraman
2009/0123727 May 2009 Martin et al.
2009/0126300 May 2009 Fujiwara et al.
2009/0130452 May 2009 Surace et al.
2009/0151602 June 2009 Francis
2009/0169864 July 2009 Wang et al.
2009/0169878 July 2009 Rigaudon et al.
2009/0252941 October 2009 Mueller et al.
2009/0253323 October 2009 Mueller et al.
2010/0031853 February 2010 Visocekas et al.
2010/0088984 April 2010 Guevara et al.
2010/0136269 June 2010 Andersen et al.
2010/0139528 June 2010 Yu et al.
2010/0143682 June 2010 Shake et al.
2010/0221402 September 2010 Wang et al.
2010/0247937 September 2010 Liu et al.
2010/0291305 November 2010 Wittbold et al.
2011/0009564 January 2011 Wang et al.
2011/0054053 March 2011 Lee et al.
2011/0132235 June 2011 Yu et al.
2011/0195241 August 2011 Yu et al.
Foreign Patent Documents
406048 Jan 2000 AT
486746 Nov 1975 AU
1238312 Dec 1999 CN
1396138 Feb 2003 CN
4316518 Nov 1994 DE
216497 Apr 1987 EP
335405 Oct 1989 EP
409781 Jan 1991 EP
955277 Nov 1999 EP
1008568 Jun 2000 EP
2673620 Sep 1992 FR
941399 Nov 1963 GB
1028890 May 1966 GB
1250713 Oct 1971 GB
1381457 Jan 1975 GB
1504929 Mar 1978 GB
2053779 Feb 1981 GB
05-293350 Nov 1993 JP
08-231258 Sep 1996 JP
09-165244 Jun 1997 JP
2001-504795 Apr 2001 JP
2003-020262 Jan 2003 JP
1020060123582 Oct 2006 KR
126524 Feb 1973 NO
2215708 Nov 2003 RU
885178 Nov 1981 SU
887506 Dec 1981 SU
27041 Feb 2000 UA
52047 Dec 2002 UA
88764 Nov 2009 UA
WO 95/31415 Nov 1995 WO
WO 99/08978 Feb 1999 WO
WO 99/08979 Feb 1999 WO
WO 00/06518 Feb 2000 WO
WO 01/34534 May 2001 WO
WO 01/45932 Jun 2001 WO
WO 01/81263 Nov 2001 WO
WO 01/81264 Nov 2001 WO
WO 03/000620 Jan 2003 WO
WO 03/040055 May 2003 WO
WO 03/053878 Jul 2003 WO
WO 03/082766 Oct 2003 WO
WO 2004/002916 Jan 2004 WO
WO 2004/033581 Apr 2004 WO
WO 2004/039749 May 2004 WO
WO 2004/061042 Jul 2004 WO
WO 2004/083146 Sep 2004 WO
WO 2005/080294 Sep 2005 WO
WO 2006/071116 Jul 2006 WO
WO 2006/135613 Dec 2006 WO
WO 2006/135707 Dec 2006 WO
WO 2006/138273 Dec 2006 WO
WO 2007/024420 Mar 2007 WO

Other References

"Standard Test Method for Physical Testing of Gypsum Panel Products", Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Designations: C 473-97, vol. 0401 1998, pp. 253-264. cited by examiner .
U.S. Appl. No. 08/916,058, filed Aug. 21, 1997, Yu. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/267,125, filed Nov. 4, 2005, Baig. cited by applicant .
Camp, T. F., "The Manufacture of Gypsum Board", Chapter III, Section II, The Manufacture and Technology of Gypsum Products, Dec. 22, 1950. cited by applicant .
GEO Specialty Chemicals, Aero Technology, Jan. 14, 2002, two pages. cited by applicant .
Grace Specialty Vermiculite, "VCX Vermiculite Ore Concentrate", W.R. Grace & Co., Conn. USA (2008). cited by applicant .
Grace Specialty Vermiculite, "Zonolite #3 Agricultural/Horticultural Vermiculite" W.R. Grace & Co., Conn. USA (1999). cited by applicant .
Grodzka, P. et al.; On the Development of Heat Storage Building Materials; Conf-820814--23; DE82 020814; Library of Congress Newspaper RM (Aug. 1, 1982). cited by applicant .
Hannant, D.J. et al.; Polyolefin Fibrous Networks in Cement Matrices for Low Cost Sheeting; Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land; 1980; pp. 591-597; A 294; Civil Engineering Department Univ. of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, U.K. cited by applicant .
K.F.Mikhaylov--Manual for manufacturing prefabricated reinforced concrete articles, Moscow, Stroyizdat, 1982, pp. 42,44. cited by applicant .
Karni, J.; Thin Gypsum Panels; Materiaux et Constructions; 1980; pp. 383-389; vol. 13, No. 77; Bordas-Dunod; Israel. cited by applicant .
Ockerman, Food Science Sourcebook, Second Edition, Part 1, Terms and Descriptions, pp. 477, 595, 722, New York, NY (1991). cited by applicant .
Potter, Michael J., "Vermiculite" US Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook-2001, 5 total pages (p. 82.1-82.3 and two pages of tables) (2001). cited by applicant .
Ratinov, V.B. et al. Dobavki v beton (Concrete Admixtures), in Russian, ISBN 5274005667 / 9785274005661 / 5-274-00566-7, Moscow, Stroyizdat, 1989, pp. 20, 21, 105-110. cited by applicant .
Salyer, et al., "Utilization of Bagasse in New Composite Building Materials", Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 1982; pp. 17-23; 21; Center for Basic and Applied Polymer Research, Univ. of Dayton, OH 45469. cited by applicant .
Van Wazer, Phosphorus and Its Compounds, vol. 1, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York (1958), pp. 419-427 and pp. 6799-6795. cited by applicant .
Virginia Vermiculite LLC, "Grade No. 4 Vermiculite Concentrate", VA, USA (Jan. 2008). cited by applicant .
Virginia Vermiculite LLC, "Grade No. 45 Vermiculite Concentrate", VA, USA (Jan. 2008). cited by applicant .
Weber, Charles, G., "Fiber Building Boards Their Manufacture and Use", Industrial and Engineering Chemistry; Aug. 1935; 27 (8): 896-898; National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. cited by applicant .
Blaine, "Accelerating the hydration of calcium sulfate hemihydrate via high energy mixing," Materials and Structures, Jul. 1997, 30:362-365. cited by applicant .
Card, J.: "Production of Lightweight Wallboard", Global Gypsum, Mar. 1999, p. 17. cited by applicant .
Englert, et al., "Properties of Gypsum Fiberboard Made by the USG Process", Proceedings of the 4th International Inorganic-Bonded Wood & Fiber Composite Materials Conference, Sep. 25-28, 1994, Spokane, WA, A.A. Moslemi ed., 1995, 4:52-58. cited by applicant .
Henein, The Development of a Novel Foam Batching and Generating System, Jun. 1977, Masters Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. cited by applicant .
Miller, et al., "Commercial Scale-Up Experience with USG's Gypsum Fiberboard Process", Proceedings of the 7th International Inorganic-Bonded Wood & Fiber Composite Materials Conference, Sun Valley, ID, A.A. Moslemi ed., 2000, 7:337-355. cited by applicant .
Miller, et al., "Development and Scale-Up of USG's Gypsum Fiberboard Technology", Proceedings of the 6th International Inorganic-Bonded Wood & Fiber Composite Materials Conference, Sun Valley, ID, A.A. Moslemi, ed., 1998, 6:4-12. cited by applicant .
Miller, et al., "USG Process for Manufacturing Fiber Composite Panels", International Cement Review, Nov. 1995, pp. 41-42. cited by applicant .
Miller, et al., "USG Process for Manufacturing Gypsum Fiber Composite Panels" Proceedings of the 4th International Inorganic-Bonded Wood & Fiber Composite Materials Conference, Sep. 25-28, 1994, Spokane, WA, A.A. Moslemi ed., 1995, 4:47-51. cited by applicant .
Olson, G,B.: "Computational Design of Hierarchically Structured Materials", Science, vol. 277, p. 1237 (1997). cited by applicant .
Burrows, "A Decade's Experience of Gypsum Board Weight Reduction in the U.S.", 14. Internationale Baustofftagung (Weimar, Sep. 20-23, 2000), 1.01971-1.0207. cited by applicant .
Peterson, Kurt, "Engineered Gypsum Panels, the Development and Application of Densified Zones at the Paper/Core Interface of Gypsum Panels", Proceedings of Gypsum 2000, 6th International Conference on Natural and Synthetic Gypsum, Toronto, Canada, May 2000, pp. 9-1-9-16. cited by applicant .
Allen, "Computed Tomography of the Antikythera Mechanism," Abstracts of Sin World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Abstract No. P04, p. 88 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
Alme et al., "3D Reconstruction of 10000 Particle Trajectories in Real-time" Abstracts of Sth World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Abstract No. VIAOS, p. 91 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
AZom.com, AZO Materials Particle Size--US Sieve Series and Tyler Mesh Size Equivalents, obtained from the internet at http://www.azom.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1417 on Jan. 21, 2011; Date added: May 15, 2002. cited by applicant .
Banasiak et al., "Application of Charge Simulation Method (CSM) for ECT Imaging in Forward Problem and Sensitivity Matrix Calculation" Abstracts of Sth World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, No.about.ay, Abstract No. VIA02, p. 89 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
Janaszewski et al., Adaptive 3D Algorithm to Detect Bridging Ligaments during Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Stainless Steel Abstracts of Sth World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Abstract No. VIA03, p. 90 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
Li et al., "Updating Sensitivity Maps in Landweber Iteration for Electrical Capacitance Tomography" Abstracts of Sth World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Abstract No. VIA04, p. 90 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
Lin et al., "Characterization and Analysis of Porous, Brittle Solid Structures by Micro CT" Abstracts of Sth World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Paper No. VIA07, p. 92 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
Maad et al., "Comparing Analysis of Image Visualisation Accuracy of Electrical Capacitance Tomography and Gamma Tomography" Abstracts of S World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Abstract No. VIA01, p. 89 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
Ship et al., "Thermophysical Characterization of Type X Special Fire Resistant Gypsum Board", Proceedings of the Fire and Materials 2011 Conference, San Francisco, Jan. 31- Feb. 2, 2011, Interscience Communications Ltr., London, UK, p. 417-426. cited by applicant .
Standard Test Methods for Physical Testing of Gypsum Panel Products, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Designations: C473-97, vol. 04.01 1998, pp. 253-264. cited by applicant .
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 5th Edition, vol. A4, "Calcium Sulfate" Wirsching, Franz, pp. 1, 15 (Dec. 20, 1985). cited by applicant .
Videla, et al., "Watershed Functions Applied to a 3D Segmentation Problem for the Analysis of Packed Particle Beds", Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 23 (2006) 237-245, . DOI:10.1002/ppsc.200601055, Weinheim. cited by applicant .
Xiong et al., "Wavelet Enhanced Visualisation and Solids Distribution in the Top of Circulating Fluidized Beds" Abstracts of Sth World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Bergen, Norway, Abstract No. VIA06, p. 91 (Sep. 6, 2007). cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 60/688,839, filed Jun. 9, 2005. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/445,906, filed Jun. 2, 2006. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/449,177, filed Jun. 7, 2006. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 12/795,125, filed Jun. 7, 2010. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/592,481, filed Nov. 2, 2006. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/537,395, filed Sep. 29, 2006. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/906,479, filed Oct. 2, 2007. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/932,211, filed Oct. 31, 2007. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/035,800, filed Feb. 25, 2011. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 61/446,941, filed Feb. 25, 2011. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/493,941, filed Jun. 11, 2012. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,159, filed Feb. 19, 2010. cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 13/400,010, filed Feb. 17, 2012. cited by applicant .
Dilofo.RTM. GW Products Bulletin, "Polynaphthalene Sulfonate, Sodium Salt", GEO Speciality Chemicals, Horsham, PA (Nov. 1999). cited by applicant .
Hyonic.RTM. PFM33 Products Bulletin, "Zero VOC Foaming Agent for Gypsum Wallboard", GEO Speciality Chemicals, Horsham, PA (Jul. 2000). cited by applicant .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/592,481, filed Nov. 2, 2006, Yu et al. cited by applicant.

Primary Examiner: Sample; David
Assistant Examiner: Gugliotta; Nicole T
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Leydig Voit & Mayer, Ltd. Petti; Philip T. Janci; David F.

Parent Case Text



This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/449,177, filed Jun. 7, 2006 .Iadd.now U.S. Pat. No. 7,731,794.Iaddend., and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/445,906, filed Jun. 2, 2006 .Iadd.now abandoned.Iaddend., each one of which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/688,839, filed Jun. 9, 2005. The entire disclosures of each of the foregoing patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference.
Claims



What is claimed is:

1. A composite light weight gypsum composite board comprising: a foamed low density set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, the foamed low density set gypsum core made using a gypsum-containing slurry including stucco, from about 0.5% by weight to about 10% by weight pregelatinized starch .Iadd.based on the weight of stucco.Iaddend., and foam, a top non-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a bottom non-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers comprising from about 10% by weight to about 16% by weight of the total amount of the gypsum-containing slurry, a top cover sheet, and a bottom cover sheet, wherein the top cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top non-foamed high density bonding layer, and the bottom cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom non-foamed high density bonding layer, the foamed low density set gypsum core has a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf and the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers have a density from about 60 pcf to about 70 pcf, and wherein the composite board has a dry weight of about 1000 lb/msf or less for a 1/2 inch thick board, a nail pull resistance of at least about 77 lb.[./msf.]., and a core hardness of at least about 11 lb.[./msf.]..

2. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1 in which the pregelatinized starch is in the form of a pre-dispersion of about 10% by weight in water.

3. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% by weight to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

4. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant in the form of an aqueous solution containing from about 40% to about 45% by weight naphthalenesulfonate and the aqueous solution is present in the slurry in an amount from about 0.5% to about 2.5% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

5. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises sodium trimetaphosphate present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

6. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises glass fiber present in an amount up to about 0.5% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

7. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises a waterproofing agent.

8. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the foam is soap foam, and the soap is present in an amount from about 0.3 lb/msf to about 0.5 lb/msf.

9. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the top cover sheet is paper having a weight of about 60 lb/msf.

10. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the top cover sheet is a fibrous mat.

11. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 10, wherein the fibrous mat is a nonwoven glass fiber mat.

12. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 1, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry has a water/stucco ratio from about 0.7 to about 1.3.

13. A composite light weight gypsum composite board comprising: a foamed low density set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, the foamed low density set gypsum core made using a gypsum-containing slurry including stucco, pregelatinized starch, and foam, a top reduced-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a bottom reduced-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a top cover sheet, and a bottom cover sheet, wherein the top cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top reduced-foamed high density bonding layer, and the bottom cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom reduced-foamed high density bonding layer, the foamed low density set gypsum core has a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf and the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers have a density from about 60 pcf to about 70 pcf, and wherein the composite board has a dry weight of about 1000 lb/msf for a 1/2 inch thick board, a nail pull resistance of at least about 77 lb.[./msf.]., and a core hardness of at least about 11 lb.[./msf.]..

14. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the pregelatinized starch is present in an amount from about 0.5% by weight to about 10% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

15. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13 in which the pregelatinized starch is in the form of a pre-dispersion of about 10% by weight in water.

16. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% by weight to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

17. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises sodium trimetaphosphate present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

18. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the foam is soap foam, and the soap is present in an amount from about 0.2 lb/msf to about 0.7 lb/msf.

19. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 18, wherein the top and bottom reduced-foamed high density bonding layers include about 5% by weight or less of the amount of soap used to make the foamed low density set gypsum core.

20. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the top cover sheet is paper having a weight of about 60 lb/msf.

.[.21. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the foamed low density set gypsum core has a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf..].

.[.22. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 13, wherein the top and bottom reduced-foamed high density bonding layers have a density from about 45 pcf to about 60 pcf..].

23. A composite light weight gypsum composite board having a dry weight of about 1,000 lb./msf or less for a 1/2 inch thick board comprising: a foamed low density set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, the foamed low density set gypsum core made using a gypsum-containing slurry including stucco from about 0.5% by weight to about 10% by weight pregelatinized starch .Iadd.based on the weight of stucco.Iaddend., and foam, a top non-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a bottom non-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers comprising from about 10% by weight to about 16% by weight of the total amount of the gypsum-containing slurry, a top fibrous mat cover sheet, and a bottom cover sheet, wherein the top cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top non-foamed high density bonding layer, and the bottom cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom non-foamed high density bonding layer, the foamed low density set gypsum core has a density from about 10 pcf to about 30 pcf and the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers have a density from about 60 pcf to about 70 pcf.

24. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 23 in which the pregelatinized starch is in the form of a pre-dispersion of about 10% by weight in water.

25. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 23, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% by weight to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

26. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 23, wherein the gypsum-containing slurry further comprises sodium trimetaphosphate present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

27. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 23, wherein the foam is soap foam, and the soap is present in an amount from about 0.2 lb/msf to about 0.7 lb/msf.

28. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 23, wherein the board has a dry weight from about 900 lb/msf to about 1100 lb/msf.

29. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 23, wherein the fibrous mat cover sheet is a nonwoven glass fiber mat.

30. A method of making composite light weight gypsum board having a dry weight from about 900 lbs./msf to about 1,100 lbs./msf, comprising the steps of: (a) mixing a non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry having a density from about 80 pcf to about 85 pcf comprising water, stucco, pregelatinized starch, and a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant, wherein the pregelatinized starch is present in an amount from about 0.5% by weight to about 10% by weight based on the weight of stucco, and wherein the naphthalenesulfonate dispersant is present in an amount from about 0.1% to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of stucco; (b) depositing from about 6% to about 9% by weight of the total amount of the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry on a first cover sheet; (c) adding soap foam to from about 84% to about 90% by weight of the total amount of the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry to form a foamed gypsum-containing slurry; (d) depositing the foamed gypsum-containing slurry onto the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry on the first cover sheet; (e) depositing from about 4% to about 7% by weight of the total amount of the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry on a second cover sheet; (f) placing the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry-covered surface of the second cover sheet over the deposited foamed gypsum-containing slurry to form a composite light weight gypsum board; (g) cutting the composite light weight gypsum board after the foamed gypsum-containing slurry has hardened sufficiently for cutting; and (h) drying the composite light weight gypsum board to provide a foamed low density set gypsum core in the finished composite light weight gypsum board.

31. The method of claim 30 in which the pregelatinized starch is in the form of a pre-dispersion of about 10% by weight in water.

32. The method of claim 30, wherein the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry further comprises sodium trimetaphosphate present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

33. The method of claim 30, wherein the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry further comprises glass fiber present in an amount up to about 0.5% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

34. The method of claim 30, wherein the non-foamed gypsum-containing slurry further comprises paper fiber present in an amount up to about 1.0% by weight based on the weight of stucco.

35. The method of claim 30, wherein the soap foam includes soap present in an amount from about 0.3 lb/msf to about 0.5 lb/msf.

36. The method of claim 30, wherein the first cover sheet and the second cover sheet are made of paper.

37. The method of claim 30, wherein the first cover sheet is paper having a weight of about 60 lb/msf.

38. The method of claim 30, wherein the first cover sheet is a fibrous mat.

39. The method of claim 38, wherein the fibrous mat is a nonwoven glass fiber mat.

40. The method of claim 30, wherein the foamed gypsum-containing slurry has a water/stucco ratio from about 0.7 to about 1.3.

41. The method of claim 30, wherein the pregelatinized starch is corn starch.

42. A composite light weight gypsum board, comprising: a foamed low density set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, the foamed low density set gypsum core made using a gypsum-containing slurry comprising water, stucco, pregelatinized corn starch present in an amount of about 6% by weight based on the weight of stucco, a 45% by weight aqueous solution of a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant present in an amount of about 1.2% by weight based on the weight of stucco, sodium trimetaphosphate present in an amount of about 0.3% by weight based on the weight of stucco, paper fiber present in an amount of about 1% based on the weight of stucco, and glass fiber present in an amount of about 0.5% based on the weight of stucco, and soap foam, a top non-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a bottom non-foamed high density bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers comprising from about 10% by weight to about 16% by weight of the total amount of the gypsum-containing slurry, a top paper cover sheet having a weight of about 60 lb/msf, and a bottom paper cover sheet, wherein the top cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top non-foamed high density bonding layer, and the bottom cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom non-foamed high density bonding layer, wherein the foamed low density set gypsum core has a density of about 25 pcf, the top and bottom non-foamed high density bonding layers have a density from about 60 pcf to about 70 pcf and wherein the composite board has a dry weight of about 1000 lb/msf for a 1/2 inch thick board, a nail pull resistance of at least about 77 lb.[./msf.]., and a core hardness of at least about 11 lb.[./msf.]..

43. The composite light weight gypsum board of claim 42 in which the pregelatinized corn starch is in the form of a pre-dispersion of about 10% by weight in water.

.Iadd.44. A composite gypsum board comprising: a set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, the set gypsum core formed from at least stucco, starch, and foam, a top bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils adjacent the top surface of the set gypsum core, a bottom bonding layer having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils covering the bottom surface of the set gypsum core, a top cover sheet, and a bottom cover sheet, wherein the top cover sheet is bonded to the set gypsum core by the top bonding layer, and the bottom cover sheet is bonded to the set gypsum core by the bottom bonding layer, the set gypsum core has a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf and less than the density of either the top or bottom bonding layer, and wherein the board, when at a thickness of about 1/2 inch, has a dry weight of about 1100 lbs/MSF or less and a core hardness of at least about 11 lb as determined in accordance with ASTM C473..Iaddend.

.Iadd.45. The composite gypsum board of claim 44, wherein the starch is present in an amount from about 0.5% by weight to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.46. The composite gypsum board of claim 44, wherein the set gypsum core further comprises dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% bv weight to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.47. The composite gypsum board of claim 44, wherein the set gypsum core further comprises a trimetaphosphate salt present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.48. The composite gypsum board of claim 44, wherein the top and bottom bonding layers have a density from about 45 pcf to about 70 pcf..Iaddend.

.Iadd.49. A composite gypsum board comprising: a set gypsum core having a dry density; the set gypsum core adjacent to a first and a second bonding layer each having a dry density, the set gypsum core dry density being less than each of the first and second bonding layer dry densities by a differential of at least about 10 pcf; the first and second bonding layers each having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils; the board, when at a thickness of about 1/2 inch, having a dry weight of about 1100 lbs/MSF or less; and the set gypsum core has an average core hardness of at least about 11 pounds as determined in accordance with ASTM C473..Iaddend.

.Iadd.50. The composite gypsum board of claim 49, wherein the first and second bonding layers are formed from one or more slurries, the amount of slurry used to form the first and second bonding layers comprising from about 10% to about 16% by weight of the total amount of slurry used to form the set gypsum core and the first and second bonding layers..Iaddend.

.Iadd.51. The composite gypsum board of claim 49, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and starch present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the stucco, the starch effective to increase the core hardness of the gypsum board relative to the core hardness of the gypsum board without the starch..Iaddend.

.Iadd.52. The composite gypsum board of claim 49, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.53. The composite gypsum board of claim 49, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and a trimetaphosphate salt present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.54. The composite gypsum board of claim 49, the set gypsum core having a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf and the top and bottom bonding layers having a density from about 45 pcf to about 70 pcf..Iaddend.

.Iadd.55. The composite gypsum board of claim 54, wherein the board, when at a thickness of about 1/2 inch, has (a) a nail pull resistance of at least 65 lb and (b) an average flexural strength of at least 36 lb in a machine direction and/or 107 lb in a cross-machine direction, as determined in accordance with ASTM C473..Iaddend.

.Iadd.56. The composite gypsum board of claim 54, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, dispersant, a trimetaphosphate salt and starch present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the stucco, the starch effective to increase the core hardness of the gypsum board relative to the core hardness of the gypsum board without the starch and dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of the stucco and a trimetaphosphate salt present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.57. A composite gypsum board comprising: the set gypsum core adjacent to a first and a second bonding layer, the dry density of the gypsum core being less than each of the dry densities of first and second bonding layer by a differential of at least about 10 pcf; the first and second bonding layers each having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils; the board, when at a thickness of about 1/2 inch, having a dry weight of about 1100 lbs/MSF or less; and the board has a ratio of dry density (pcf) to average core hardness (lb) of less than about 3.2, wherein the core hardness is determined in accordance with ASTM C473..Iaddend.

.Iadd.58. The composite gypsum board of claim 57, wherein the first and second bonding layers are formed from one or more slurries, the amount of slurry used to form the first and second bonding layers comprising from about 10% to about 16% by weight of the total amount of slurry used to form the set gypsum core and the first and second bonding layers..Iaddend.

.Iadd.59. The composite gypsum board of claim 57, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and starch present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the stucco, the starch effective to increase the core hardness of the gypsum board relative to the core hardness of the gypsum board without the starch..Iaddend.

.Iadd.60. The composite gypsum board of claim 57, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and a trimetaphosphate salt present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.61. The composite gypsum board of claim 57, the set gypsum core having a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf and the top and bottom bonding layers having a density from about 45 pcf to about 70 pcf..Iaddend.

.Iadd.62. A composite gypsum board comprising: a set gypsum core having a dry density; the set gypsum core adjacent to a first and a second bonding layer each having a dry density, the set gypsum core dry density being less than each of the first and second bonding layer dry densities by a differential of at least about 10 pcf; the first and second bonding layers each having a thickness of about 2 mils to less than about 7 mils; the board, when at a thickness of about 1/2 inch, having a dry weight of about 1100 lbs/MSF or less; and the board, when at a thickness of about 1/2 inch (about 1.3 cm), has a nail pull resistance to average core hardness ratio from about 4 to about 8, each as determined in accordance with ASTM C473..Iaddend.

.Iadd.63. The composite gypsum board of claim 62, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and starch present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the stucco, the starch effective to increase the core hardness of the gypsum board relative to the core hardness of the gypsum board without the starch..Iaddend.

.Iadd.64. The composite gypsum board of claim 62, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and a trimetaphosphate salt present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.

.Iadd.65. The composite gypsum board of claim 62, the set gypsum core having a density from about 10 pcf to about 27 pcf and the top and bottom bonding layers having a density from about 45 pcf to about 70 pcf..Iaddend.

.Iadd.66. The composite gypsum board of claim 65, the set gypsum core has an average core hardness of at least about 11 pounds as determined in accordance with ASTM C473..Iaddend.

.Iadd.67. The composite gypsum board of claim 65, the set gypsum core formed from a slurry comprising water, stucco, foam, and starch present in an amount from about 0.5% to about 10% by weight based on the weight of the stucco, the starch effective to increase the core hardness of the gypsum board relative to the core hardness of the gypsum board without the starch and dispersant present in an amount from about 0.1% to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of the stucco and a trimetaphosphate salt present in an amount from about 0.12% by weight to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of the stucco..Iaddend.
Description



FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention pertains to unique light weight composite gypsum boards having high strength. It also pertains to a method of making such light weight composite gypsum boards using a unique gypsum-containing slurry to form a foamed low density set gypsum core and non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layers that bond the top and bottom cover sheets to the core.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Certain properties of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) make it very popular for use in making industrial and building products, such as gypsum wallboard. Gypsum is a plentiful and generally inexpensive raw material which, through a process of dehydration and rehydration, can be cast, molded or otherwise formed into useful shapes. The base material from which gypsum wallboard and other gypsum products are manufactured is the hemihydrate form of calcium sulfate (CaSO.sub.4.1/2H.sub.2O), commonly termed "stucco," which is produced by heat conversion of the dihydrate form of calcium sulfate (CaSO.sub.4.2H.sub.2O), from which 1-1/2 water molecules been removed.

Conventional gypsum-containing products such as gypsum wallboard have many advantages, such as low cost and easy workability. Various improvements have been achieved in making gypsum-containing products using starches as ingredients in the slurries used to make such products. Pregelatinized starch, for example, can increase flexural strength and compressive strength of gypsum-containing products including gypsum wallboard. Known gypsum wall board contains board starch at levels of less than about 10 lbs/MSF.

It is also necessary to use substantial amounts of water in gypsum slurries containing pregelatinized starch in order ensure proper flowability of the slurry. Unfortunately, most of this water must eventually be driven off by drying, which is expensive due to the high cost of the fuels used in the drying process. The drying step is also time-consuming. It has been found that the use of naphthalenesulfonate dispersants can increase the fluidity of the slurries, thus overcoming the water demand problem. In addition, it has also been found that the naphthalenesulfonate dispersants, if the usage level is high enough, can cross-link to the pregelatinized starch to bind the gypsum crystals together after drying, thus increasing dry strength of the gypsum composite. Trimetaphosphate salts have not in the past been recognized to affect gypsum slurry water requirements. However, the present inventors have discovered that increasing the level of the trimetaphosphate salt to hitherto unknown levels in the presence of a specific disperant makes it possible to achieve proper slurry flowability with unexpectedly reduced amounts of water, even in the presence of high starch levels. This, of course, is highly desirable because it in turn reduces fuel usage for drying as well as the process time associated with subsequent water removal process steps. Thus the present inventors have also discovered that the dry strength of gypsum board can be increased by using a naphthalenesulfonate disperant in combination with pregelatinized starch in the slurry used to make the wallboard.

Conventional gypsum wallboards have adequate strength for working, and meet standard test requirements such as nail pull (77 lb) and core hardness (11 lb). However, conventional wallboards are heavy, typically weighing up to 1600-1700 lb/MSF. If a way could be fund to produce a high strength gypsum wall board in which board weight (and density) is significantly reduced, without adversely affecting nail pull and hardness characteristics, this would represent a useful contribution to the art.

It is also known in making gypsum wallboard that bonding layers can be used to promote adherence or bonding of the paper cover sheets to the set gypsum core. Typically, these bonding layers are relatively thick, ranging from about 7 mils to about 25 mils, even up to 50 mils. Thinner bonding layers would be expected to be more difficult to apply and to present other drawbacks. Unfortunately, the use of these thick bonding layers can decrease the core hardness in the finished wallboard. Finished densities in these dried bonding layers range from greater than about 70 pcf to about 90 pcf. The term "pcf" is defined as pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft.sup.3). If a way could be found to make a low density set gypsum board using thinner, lighter bonding layers, without sacrificing core hardness or other important board properties, this would represent a useful contribution to the art.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention generally comprises a light weight gypsum composite board including a foamed low density set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, the foamed low density set gypsum core made using a gypsum-containing slurry comprising stucco, and based on the weight of stucco, pregelatinized starch in an amount of about 0.5-10% by weight, a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant in an amount of about 0.1-3.0% by weight and sodium trimetaphosphate in an amount of about 0.12-0.4% by weight, the light weight gypsum composite board also including a top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a top cover sheet, and a bottom cover sheet, wherein the top cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer, and the bottom cover sheet is bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer.

The top and bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layers of the light weight gypsum composite board comprise from about 10% by weight to about 16% by weight of the total amount of the gypsum-containing slurry. In a preferred embodiment, the top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core comprises about 6%-9% by weight of the total amount of the gypsum-containing slurry, and the bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core comprising about 4%-6% by weight of the total amount of the gypsum-containing slurry.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

It has now unexpectedly been found that the preparation of a foamed low density set gypsum core using thinner, lighter top and bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layers to attain good bonding of a heavy top (face) cover sheet and a bottom (back) cover sheet, can provide a composite gypsum board having nail pull resistance, core hardness, and board strength.

The composite gypsum board of the present invention includes a foamed low density set gypsum core having a top surface and a bottom surface, a top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer covering the top surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, a top (or face) cover sheet having a foamed low density set gypsum core-facing surface, the top cover sheet bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer, a bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer covering the bottom surface of the foamed low density set gypsum core, and a bottom (or back) cover sheet having a foamed low density set gypsum core-facing surface, the bottom cover sheet bonded to the foamed low density set gypsum core by the bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer. Preferably the top cover sheet will be paper having a weight of about 60 lb/MSF (thickness about 18 mils). Additionally, the top (face) cover sheet and bottom (back) cover sheet are substantially parallel with respect to the foamed low density set gypsum core. The foamed low density set gypsum core is made from a foamed gypsum slurry containing stucco, and includes pregelatinized starch, and preferably a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant, and also preferably, sodium trimetaphosphate. The top and bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layers can comprise from about 10% to about 16% of the of the total amount of gypsum slurry.

According to one embodiment of the present invention, there are provided finished composite gypsum board from gypsum-containing slurries containing stucco, pregelatinized starch, a naphthalenesulfonate disperant, and sodium trimetaphosphate. The naphthalenesulfonate disperant is present in an amount of about 0.1%-3.0% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco. The pregelatinized starch is present in an amount of at least about 0.5% by weight up to about 10% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco in the formulation. The sodium trimetaphosphate is present in an amount of about 0.12%-0.4% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco in the formulation. Other ingredients that may be used in the slurry include binders, paper fiber, glass fiber, and accelerators. A soap foam which introduces air voids is added to the newly formulated gypsum-containing slurries to help reduce the density of the foamed low density set gypsum core in the final gypsum-containing product, for example, gypsum wallboard or composite gypsum board.

The combination of from about 0.5% by weight up to about 10% by weight pregelatinized starch, from about 0.1% by weight up to about 3.0% by weight naphthalenesulfonate dispersant, and a minimum of at least about 0.12% by weight up to about 0.4% by weight of trimetaphosphate salt (all based on the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum slurry) unexpectedly and significantly increases the fluidity of the gypsum slurry. This substantially reduces the amount of water required to produce a gypsum slurry with sufficient flowability to be used in making gypsum-containing products such as gypsum wall board. The level of trimetaphosphate salt, which is at least about twice that of standard formulations (as sodium trimetaphosphate), is believed to boost the dispersant activity of the naphthalenesulfonate dispersant.

The air voids can reduce the bonding strength between a foamed low density set gypsum core and the cover sheets. Since greater than half of the composite gypsum boards by volume may consist of voids due to foam, the foam can interfere with the bond between the foamed low density set gypsum core and the paper cover sheets. This is addressed by providing a non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer on the gypsum core-contacting surfaces of both the top cover sheet and the bottom cover sheet prior to applying the cover sheets to the core. This non-foamed, or alternatively, reduced-foamed, bonding high density layer formulation typically will be the same as that of the gypsum slurry core formulation, except that either no soap will be added, or a substantially reduced amount of soap (foam) will be added. Optionally, in order to form this bonding layer, foam can be mechanically removed from the core formulation, or a different foam-free formulation can be applied at the foamed low density set gypsum core face paper interface.

Soap foam is required to introduce and to control the air (bubble) void sizes and distribution in the foamed set gypsum core, and to control the density of the foamed set gypsum core. A preferred range of soap in the set gypsum core is from about 0.2 lb/MSF to about 0.7 lb/MSF; a more preferred level of soap is about 0.3 lb/MSF to about 0.5 lb/MSF. Although preferably no soap will be used in the non-foamed bonding high density layers, if soap is used in reduced-foamed bonding high density layers, the amount will be about 5% by weight or less of the amount of soap to make the foamed low density set gypsum core.

The non-foamed or reduced-foamed, that is, high density portion of the gypsum-containing slurry used in the bonding layer will be from about 10-16% by weight of the (wet) slurry used in making the final board. In a preferred embodiment, 6-9% by weight of the slurry can be used as the top non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer, and 4-7% by weight of the slurry can be used as the bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer. The presence of the top and bottom non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layers provides an improved bond between the top and bottom cover sheets and the foamed low density set gypsum core. The wet density of the non-foamed bonding high density layer can be about 80-85 pcf. The dry (finished) density of the non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layer can be about 45-70 pcf. Additionally, the thickness of the non-foamed (or reduced-foamed) bonding high density layers of the present invention will range from about 2 mils to less than 7 mils.

Preferred cover sheets may be made of paper as in conventional gypsum wallboard, although other useful cover sheet materials known in the art (e.g. fibrous glass mates) may be used. However, particular heavy paper cover sheets preferably will be used as top (face) cover sheets in the embodiments of the present invention. Useful cover sheet paper include Manila 7-ply and News-Line 5-ply, available from United States Gypsum Corporation, Chicago, Ill.; and Grey-Back 3-ply and Manila Ivory 3-ply, available from Caraustar, Newport, Ind. A preferred bottom cover sheet paper is 5-ply News-Line (e.g. 42-46 lb/MSF). A preferred top cover sheet paper is Manila 7-ply. A particularly preferred top cover sheet paper is heavy Manila paper (60 lb/MSF, thickness 18 mils), available from Caraustar, Newport, Indiana. Other heavy, thick paper will also be preferred, ranging in thickness from about 15-20 mils.

Fibrous mats may also be used as one or both of the cover sheets. Preferably the fibrous mats will be nonwoven glass fiber mats in which filaments of glass fiber are bonded together by an adhesive. Most preferably, the nonwoven glass fiber mats will have a heavy resin coating. For example, Duraglass nonwoven glass fiber mats, available from John-Manville, having a weight of about 1.5 lb/100 ft.sup.2, with about 40-50% of the mat weight coming from the resin coating, could be used.

It is noted here that in manufacturing of conventional gypsum, wallboard, the top or face paper is laid down and moves along the production line first, and so constitutes what is known in the art as the "bottom" of the process, despite contacting and forming the top or face of the wallboard product. Conversely, the bottom or back paper is applied last in the manufacturing process in what is known as the "top" of the process. These same conventions will apply in the formation and preparation of the composite gypsum boards of the present invention. Reference is made to Example 7B below.

It is preferred that a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant by used in gypsum-containing slurries prepared in accordance with the present invention. The naphthalenesulfonate dispersants used in the present invention include polynaphthalenesulfonic acid and its salts (polynaphthalenesulfonates) and derivatives, which are condensation products of naphthalenesulfonic acids and formaldehyde. Particularly desirable polynaphthalenesulfonates include sodium and calcium naphthalenesulfonate. The average molecular weight of the naphthalenesulfonates can range from about 3,000 to 27,000, although it is preferred that the molecular weight be about 8,000 to 22,000, and more preferred that the molecular weight be about 12,000 to 17,000. As a commercial product, a higher molecular weight dispersant has higher viscosity, and lower solids content, than a lower molecular weight dispersant. Useful naphthalenesulfonates include DILOFLO, available from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Cleveland, Ohio; DAXAD, available from Hampshire Chemical Corp., Lexington, Mass.; and LOMAR D, available from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Lafayette, Ind. The naphthalenesulfonates are preferably used as aqueous solutions in the range 35-55% by weight solids content, for example. It is most preferred to use the naphthalenesulfonates in the form of an aqueous solution, for example, in the range of about 40-45% by weight solids content. Alternatively, where appropriate, the naphthalenesulfonates can be used in dry solid or powder form, such as LOMAR D, for example.

The polynaphthalenesulfonates useful in the present invention have the general structure (1):

##STR00001## wherein n is>2, and wherein M is sodium, potassium, calcium, and the like.

The naphthalenesulfonate dispersant, preferably as an about 45% by weight solution in water, may be used in a range of from about 0.5% to about 3.0% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum composite formulation. A more preferred range of naphthalenesulfonate dispersant is from about 0.5% to about 2.0% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco, and a most preferred range from about 0.7% to about 2.0% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco. In contrast, known gypsum wallboard contains this dispersant at levels of about 0.4% by weight, or less, based on the weight of dry stucco.

Stated in an another way, the naphthalenesulfonate disperant, on a dry weight basis, may be used in a range from about 0.1% to about 1.5% by weight based of the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum composite formulation. A more preferred range of naphthalenesulfonate dispersant, on a dry solids basis, is from about 0.25% to about 0.7% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco, and a most preferred range (on a dry solids basis) from about 0.3% to about 0.7% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco.

The gypsum-containing slurry can optionally contain a trimetaphosphate salt, for example, sodium trimetaphosphate. Any suitable water-soluble metaphosphate or polyphosphate can be used in accordance with the present invention. It is preferred that a trimetaphosphate salt be used, including double salts, that is trimetaphosphate salts having two cations. Particularly useful trimetaphosphate salts include sodium trimetaphosphate, potassium trimetaphosphate, calcium trimetaphosphate, sodium calcium trimetaphosphate, lithium trimetaphosphate, ammonium trimetaphosphate, and the like, or combinations thereof. A preferred trimetaphosphate salt is sodium trimetaphosphate. It is preferred to use the trimetaphosphate salt as an aqueous solution, for example, in the range of about 10-15% by weight solids content. Other cyclic or acyclic polyphosphate can also be used, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,409,825 to Yu et al., herein incorporated by reference.

Sodium trimetaphosphate is a known additive in gypsum-containing compositions, although it is generally used in a range of from about 0.05% to about 0.08% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum slurry. In the embodiments of the present invention, sodium trimetaphosphate (or other water-soluble metaphosphate or polyphosphate) can be present in the range of from about 0.12% to about 0.4% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum composite formulation. A preferred range of sodium trimetaphosphate (or other water-soluble metaphosphate or polyphosphate) is from about 0.12% to about 0.3% by weight based on the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum composite formulation.

There are two forms of stucco, alpha and beta. These two types of stucco are produced by different means of calcification. In the present inventions either the beta or the alpha form of stucco may be used.

Starches, including pregelatinized starch in particular, must be used in gypsum-containing slurries prepared in accordance with the present invention. A preferred pregelatinized starch is pregelatinized corn starch, for example pregelatinized corn flour available from Bunge Milling, St. Louis, Mo., having the following typical analysis: moisture 7.5%, protein 8.0%, oil 0.5%, crude fiber 0.5%, ash 0.3%; having a green strength of 0.48 psi; and having a loose bulk density of 35.0 lb/ft.sup.3. Pregelatinized corn starch should be used in an amount of at least about 0.5% by weight up to about 10% by weight, based on the weight of dry stucco used in the gypsum-containing slurry.

The present inventors have further discovered that an unexpected increase in dry strength (particularly in wallboard) can be obtained by using at least about 0.5% by weight up to about 10% by weight pregelatinized starch (preferably pregelatinized corn starch) in the presence of about 0.1% by weight to 3.0% by weight naphthalenesulfonate dispersant (starch and naphthalenesulfonate levels based on the weight of dry stucco present in the formulation). This unexpected result can be obtained whether or not water-soluble metaphosphate or polyphosphate is present.

In addition, it has unexpectedly been found that pregelatinized starch can be used at levels of at least about 10 lb/MSF, or more, in the dried gypsum wallboard made in accordance with the present invention, yet high strength and low weight can be achieved. Levels as high as 35-45 lb/MSF pregelatinized starch in the gypsum wallboard have been shown to be effective. As an example, Formulation B, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, includes 45 lb/MSF, yet produced a board weight of 1042 lb/MSF having excellent strength. In this example (Formulation B), a naphthalenesulfonate dispersant as a 45% by weight solution in water, was used at a level of 1.28% by weight.

A further unexpected result may be achieved with the present invention when the naphthalenesulfonate dispersant trimetaphosphate salt combination is combined with pregelatinized corn starch, and optionally, paper fiber or glass fiber. Gypsum wallboard made from formulations containing these three ingredients have increased strength and reduced weight, and are more economically desirable due to the reduced water requirements in their manufacture.

Accelerators can be used in the gypsum-containing compositions of the present invention, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,409,825 to Yu et al., herein incorporated by reference. One desirable heat resistant accelerator (HRA) can be made from the dry grinding of landplaster (calcium sulfate dihydrate). Small amounts of additives (normally about 5% by weight) such as sugar, dextrose, boric acid, and starch can be used to make this HRA. Sugar, or dextrose, is currently preferred. Another useful accelerator is "climate stabilized accelerator" or "climate stable accelerator," (CSA) as described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,573,947, herein incorporated by reference.

Water/stucco (w/s) ratio is an important parameter, since excess water must eventually be driven off by heating. In the embodiments of the present invention, a generally preferred w/s ratio is from about 0.7 to about 1.3. A more preferred w/s ratio in the main gypsum slurry formulations should be in the range from 0.8-1.2.

Other gypsum slurry additives can include accelerators, binders, waterproofing agents, paper or glass fibers and other known constituents.

The following examples further illustrate the invention. They should not be construed as in any way limiting the scope of the invention.

EXAMPLE 1

Sample Gypsum Slurry Formulations

Gypsum slurry formulations are shown in Table 1 below. All values in Table 1 are expressed as weight percent based on the weight of dry stucco. Values in parentheses are dry weight in pounds (lb/MSF).

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Component Formulation A Formulation B Stucco (lb/MSF) (732) (704) sodium trimetaphosphate 0.20 (1.50) 0.30 (2.14) Dispersant (naphthalenesulfonate) 0.18 (1.35) 0.58.sup.1 (4.05) Pregelatinized starch (dry powder) 2.7 (20) 6.4 (45) Board starch 0.41 (3.0) 0 Heat resistant accelerator (HRA) (15) (15) Glass fiber 0.27 (2.0) 0.28 (2.0) Paper fiber 0 0.99 (7.0) Soap* 0.03 (0.192) 0.03 (0.192) Total Water (lb.) 805 852 Water/Stucco ratio 1.10 1.21 *Used to pregenerate foam .sup.11.28% by weight as a 45% aqueous solution.

EXAMPLE 2

Preparation of Wallboards

Sample gypsum wallboards wee prepared in accordance with U.S. Pat. No. 6,342,284, to Yu et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 6,632,550 to Yu et al., herein incorporated by reference. This includes the separate generation of foam and introduction of the foam into the slurry of all of the other ingredients as described in Example 5 of these patents.

Test results for gypsum wallboards made using the Formulation A and B of Example 1, and a normal control board are shown in Table 2 below. As in this example and other examples below, nail pull resistance, core hardness, and flexural strength tests were performed according to ASTM C-473. Additionally, it is noted that typical gypsum wallboard is approximately 1/2 inch thick and has a weight of between about 1600 to 1800 pounds per 1,000 square feet of material, or lb/MSF. ("MSF" is a standard abbreviation in the art for a thousand square feet; it is an area measurement for boxes, corrugated media and wallboard.)

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Control Formulation Formulation Lab test result Board A Board B Board Board weight (lb/MSF) 1587 1066 1042 Nail pull resistance (lb) 81.7 50.2 72.8 Core hardness (lb) 16.3 5.2 11.6 Humidified bond load (lb) 17.3 20.3 15.1 Humidified bond failure (%) 0.6 5 11.1 Flexural strength, face-up (MD) (lb) 47 47.2 52.6 Flexural strength, face-down (MD) 51.5 66.7 78.8 (lb) Flexural strength, face-up (XMD) 150 135.9 173.1 (lb) Flexural strength, face-down (XMD) 144.4 125.5 165.4 (lb) MD: machine direction XMD: across machine direction

As illustrated in Table 2, gypsum wallboards prepared using the Formulation A and B slurries have significant reductions in weight compared to the control board. With reference again to Table 1, the comparisons of the Formulation A board to the Formulation B board are most striking. The water/stucco (w/s) ratios are similar in Formulation A and Formulation B. A significantly higher level of naphthalenesulfonate dispersant is also used in Formulation B. Also, in Formulation B substantially more pregelatinized starch was used, about 6% by weight, a greater than 100% increase over Formulation A accompanied by marked strength increases. Even so, the water demand to produce the required flowability remained low in the Formulation B slurry, the difference being about 10% in comparison to Formulation A. The low water demand in both Formulations is attributed to the synergistic effect of the combination of naphthalenesulfonate dispersant and sodium trimetaphosphate in the gypsum slurry, which increases the fluidity of the gypsum slurry, even in the presence of a substantially higher level of pregelatinized starch.

As illustrated in Table 2, the wallboard prepared using the Formulation B slurry has substantially increased strength compared with the wallboard prepared using the Formulation A slurry. By incorporating increased amounts of pregelatinized starch in combination with increased amounts of naphthalenesulfonate dispersant and sodium trimetaphosphate, nail pull resistance in the Formulation B board improved by 45% over the Formulation A board. Substantial increases in flexural strength were also observed in the Formulation B board as compared to the Formulation A board.

EXAMPLE 3

1/2 Inch Gypsum Wallboard Weight Reduction Trials

Further gypsum wallboard examples (Boards C, D and E), including slurry formulations and test results are shown in Table 3 below. The slurry formulations of Table 3 include the major components of the slurries. Values in parentheses are expressed as weight percent based on the weight of dry stucco.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Control Formulation Formulation Formulation Board C Board D Board E Board Trial formulation component/parameter Dry stucco (lb/MSF) 1300 1281 1196 1070 Accelerator (lb/MSF) 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 DILOFLO.sup.1 (lb/MSF) 4.1 (0.32%) 8.1 (0.63%) 8.1 (0.68%) 8.1 (0.76%) Regular starch (lb/MSF) 5.6 (0.43%) 0 0 0 Pregelatinized corn starch 0 10 (0.78%) 10 (0.84%) 10 (0.93%) (lb/MSF) Sodium trimetaphosphate 0.7 (0.05%) 1.6 (0.12%) 1.6 (0.13%) 1.6 (0.15%) (lb/MSF) Total water/stucco ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.84 (w/s) Trial formulation test results Dry board weight 1611 1570 1451 1320 (lb/MSF) Nail pull resistance (lb) 77.3.sup..dagger. 85.5 77.2 65.2 .sup..dagger.ASTM standard: 77 lb .sup.1DILOFLO is a 45% Naphthalensulfonate solution in water

As illustrated in Table 3, Boards C, D, and E were made from a slurry having substantially increased amounts of starch, DILOFLO dispersant, and sodium trimetaphosphate in comparison with the control board (about a two-fold increase on a percentage basis for the starch an disperant, and a two- or three-fold increase for the trimetaphosphate), while maintaining the w/s ratio constant. Nevertheless, board weight was significantly reduced and strength as measured by nail pull resistance was not dramatically affected. Therefore, in this example of an embodiment of the invention, the new formulation (such as, for example, Board D) can provide increased starch formulated in a usable, flowable slurry, while maintaining the same w/s ratio and adequate strength.

EXAMPLE 4

Wet Gypsum Cube Strength Test

The wet cube strength tests were carried out by using Southard CKS board stucco, available from United States Gypsum Corp., Chicago, Ill. and tap water in the laboratory to determine their wet compressive strength. The following lab test procedure was used.

Stucco (1000 g), CSA (2 g), and tap water (1200 cc) at about 70.degree. F. were used for each wet gypsum cube cast. Pregelatinized corn starch (20 g, 2.0% based on stucco wt.) and CSA (2 g, 0.2% based on stucco wt.) were thoroughly dry mixed first in a plastic bag with the stucco prior to mixing with a tap water solution containing both naphthalenesulfonate dispersant and sodium trimetaphosphate. The dispersant used was DILOFLO dispersant (1.0-2.0%, as indicated in Table 4). Varying amounts of sodium trimetaphosphate were used also as indicated in Table 4.

The dry ingredients and aqueous solution were initially combined in a laboratory Warning blender, the mixture produced allowed to soak for 10 sec, and then the mixture was mixed at low speed for 10 sec in order to make the slurry. The slurries thus formed were cast into three 2''.times.2''.times.2'' cube molds. The cast cubes were then removed from the molds, weighted, and sealed inside plastic bags to prevent moisture loss before the compressive strength test was performed. The compressive strength of the wet cubes was measured using an ATS machine and recorded as an average in pounds per square inch (psi). The results obtained were as follows:

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Sodium Wet cube Test trimetaphosphate, DILOFLO.sup.1 weight Wet cube Sample grams (wt % based (wt % based (2'' .times. 2'' .times. 2''), compressive No. on dry stucco) on dry stucco) g strength, psi 1 0 1.5 183.57 321 2 0.5 (0.05) 1.5 183.11 357 3 1 (0.1) 1.5 183.19 360 4 2 (0.2) 1.5 183.51 361 5 4 (0.4) 1.5 183.65 381 6 10 (1.0) 1.5 183.47 369 7 0 1.0 184.02 345 8 0.5 (0.05) 1.0 183.66 349 9 1 (0.1) 1.0 183.93 356 10 2 (0.2) 1.0 182.67 366 11 4 (0.4) 1.0 183.53 365 12 10 (1.0) 1.0 183.48 341 13 0 2.0 183.33 345 14 0.5 (0.05) 2.0 184.06 356 15 1 (0.1) 2.0 184.3 363 16 2 (0.2) 2.0 184.02 363 17 4 (0.4) 2.0 183.5 368 18 10 (1.0) 2.0 182.68 339 .sup.1DILOFLO is a 45% Naphthalensulfonate solution in water

As illustrated in Table 4, Samples 4-5, 10-11, and 17, having levels of sodium trimetaphosphate in the about 0.12-0.4% range of the present invention generally provided superior wet cube compressive strength as compared to samples with sodium trimetaphosphate outside this range.

EXAMPLE 5

1/2 Inch Light Weight Gypsum Wallboard Plant Production Trials

Further trials were performed (Trial Boards 1 and 2), including slurry formulations and test results are shown in Table 5 below. The slurry formulations of Table 5 include the major components of the slurries. Values in parentheses are expressed as weight percent based on the weight of dry stucco.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Plant Plant Control Formulation Control Formulation Board 1 Trial Board 1 Board 2 Trial Board 2 Trial formulation component/parameter Dry stucco (lb/MSF) 1308 1160 1212 1120 DILOFLO.sup.1 (lb/MSF) 5.98 (0.457%) 7.98 (0.688%) 7.18 (0.592%) 8.99 (0.803%) Regular starch (lb/MSF) 5.0 (0.38%) 0 4.6 (0.38%) 0 Pregelatinized corn starch 2.0 (0.15%) 10 (0.86%) 2.5 (0.21%) 9.0 (0.80%) (lb/MSF) Sodium trimetaphosphate 0.7 (0.05%) 2.0 (0.17%) 0.6 (0.05%) 1.6 (0.14%) (lb/MSF) Total water/stucco ratio 0.79 0.77 0.86 0.84 (w/s) Trial formulation test results Dry board weight 1619 1456 1553 1443 (lb/MSF) Nail pull resistance (lb) 81.5.sup..dagger. 82.4 80.7 80.4 Flexural strength, 41.7 43.7 44.8 46.9 average (MD) (lb) Flexural strength, 134.1 135.5 146 137.2 average (XMD) (lb) Humidified bond.sup.2 load, 19.2 17.7 20.9 19.1 average (lb) Humidified bond.sup.2,3 1.6 0.1 0.5 0 failure (%) .sup..dagger.ASTM standard: 77 lb MD: machine direction XMD: across machine direction .sup.1DILOFLO is a 45% Naphthalensulfonate solution in water .sup.290.degree. F./90% Relative Humidity .sup.3It is well understood that under these test conditions, percentage failure rates <50% are acceptable

As illustrated in Table 5, Trial Boards 1 and 2 were made from a slurry having substantially increased amounts of starch, DILOFLO dispersant, and sodium trimetaphosphate, while slightly decreasing the w/s ratio, in comparison with the control boards. Nevertheless, strength as measured by nail pull resistance and flexural testing was maintained or improved, and board weight was significantly reduced. Therefore, in this example of an embodiment of the invention, the new formulation (such as, for example, Trial Boards 1 and 2) can provide increased trimetaphosphate and starch formulated in a usable, flowable slurry, while maintaining substantially the same w/s ratio and adequate strength.

EXAMPLE 6

1/2 Inch Ultra-Light Weight Gypsum Wallboard Plant Production Trials

Further trials were performed (Trial Boards 3 and 4) using Formulation B (Example 1) as in Example 2, except that the pregelatinized corn starch was prepared with water at 10% concentration (wet starch preparation) and a blend of HYONIC 25 AS and PFM 33 soaps (available from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Lafayette, Ind.) was used. For example, Trial Board 3 was prepared with a blend of HYONIC 25 AS and PFM 33 ranging from 65-70% by weight of 25AS, and the balance PFM 33. For example, Trial Board 4 was prepared with a 70/30 wt./wt. blend of HYONIC 25AS/HYONIC PFM 33. The trial results are shown in Table 6 below.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Trial Board 3 Trial Board 4 (Formulation B plus (Formulation B plus HYONIC soap HYONIC soap blend 65/35) blend 70/30) Lab test result (n = 12) (n = 34)* Board weight (lb/MSF) 1106 1013 Nail pull resistance.sup.a (lb) 85.5 80.3 Core hardness.sup.b (lb) >15 12.4 Flexural strength, 55.6 60.3.sup.1 average.sup.c (MD) (lb) Flexural strength, 140.1 142.3.sup.1 average.sup.d (XMD) (lb) *Except as marked, .sup.1n = 4 MD: machine direction XMD: across machine direction .sup.aASTM standard: 77 lb .sup.bASTM standard: 11 lb .sup.cASTM standard: 36 lb .sup.dASTM standard: 107 lb

As illustrated in Table 6, strength characteristics as measured by nail pull and core hardness were above the ASTM standard. Flexural strength was also measured to be above the ASTM standard. Again, in this example of an embodiment of the invention, the new formulation (such as, for example, Trial Boards 3 and 4) can provide increased trimetaphosphate and starch formulated in a usable, flow slurry, while maintaining adequate strength.

EXAMPLE 7

1/2 Inch Ultra-Light Weight Composite Gypsum Board.

A. Slurry Formulation

A representative gypsum slurry formulation for producing gypsum composite board is shown in Table 7, below. All values in Table 7 are expressed as weight percent based on the weight of dry stucco. Values in parentheses are dry weight in pounds (lb/MSF).

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Component Formulation C Stucco (lb/MSF) (714) sodium trimetaphophate 0.315 (2.25) Dispersant (naphthalenesulfonate) 0.630.sup.1 (4.50) Pregelatinized starch.sup.2 6.30 (45.0) Heat resistant accelerator (HRA) (15) Glass fiber 0.560 (4.00) Paper fiber 1.12 (8.00) Soap* 0.03 (0.192) Total Water (lb) 931 Water/Stucco ratio 1.30 *Used to pregenerate foam. Note: 10-14% by weight of slurry was not treated with soap foam. .sup.11.40% by weight as a 45% aqueous solution. .sup.2Pregel starch can be added as a dry powder, or alternatively, as 10% pre-dispersed starch in water (wet starch preparation).

B. Preparation of Composite Boards with Dry Pregelatinized Starch

The composite boards were prepared as in Example 2, using Formulation C above, with the following exceptions. Dry powder pregelatinized corn starch was used to prepare the slurry. Heavy Manila paper (60 lb/MSF, caliper 0.018 in.) was used as the top (face) cover sheet, to which was applied 6-8% by weight of the non-foamed high density gypsum slurry having a wet density of 80 pcf across the entire surface of the paper. After application of the main foamed slurry, the bottom (back) cover sheet was applied, (News-Line paper--42 lb/MSF, caliper 0.0125 in.) which included on its gypsum core-facing surface 4-6% by weight of the non-foamed high density gypsum slurry having a wet density of 80-85 pcf, across the entire surface of the paper.

C. Preparation of Composite Boards with Wet Pregelatinized Starch

Composite boards were prepared as set forth above, except that the pregelatinized corn starch was prepared in solution with water at 10% concentration (wet starch preparation).

EXAMPLE 8

Testing of 1/2 Inch Ultra-Light Weight Composite Gypsum Board

Test results for composite gypsum boards prepared in Examples 7B and 7C are shown in Table 8 below. As in this example and other examples, nail pull resistance, core hardness, and flexural strength tests were performed according to ASTM C-473. 2 ft..times.4 ft. trial board samples were tested after conditioning at 70.degree. F./50% R.H.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Ex. 7B. Composite Ex. 7C. Composite Board (Dry Starch) Board (Wet Starch) Lab test result (n = 8) (n = 8) Board weight (lb/MSF) 1041 1070 Nail pull resistance (lb) 69.6 83.1 Core hardness (lb) 9.4 10.9 Paper-to-core Bond (face/back) Good/ok Good/ok

As illustrated in Table 8, the Example 7C, composite board exceeds the ASTM standard for nail pull resistance, and essentially meets the core hardness standard (see Table 6). This demonstrates that the use of strong, heavy face paper and regular back paper, both adhered to a low density core using a non-foamed high density bonding layer, can provide a board having light weight, and increased strength.

The use of the terms "a" and "an" and "the" an similar referents in the context of describing the invention (especially in the context of the following claims) are to be construed to cover both the singular and the plural, unless other wise indicated herein or clearly contradicted by context. Recitation of ranges of values herein are merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range, unless otherwise indicated herein, and each separate value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein. All methods described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplary language (e.g., "such as") provided herein, is intended merely to better illuminate the invention and does not pose a limitation on the scope of the invention unless otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed as indicating any non-claimed element as essential to the practice of the invention.

Preferred embodiments of this invention are described herein, including the best mode known to the inventors for carrying out the invention. It should be understood that the illustrated embodiments are exemplary only, and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention.

* * * * *

References


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed