Materials 2025 , 18 , 228
10of 17
Table6. Cont.
Product ID (Order Based on KES)
KES Rank
OPT Rank
Differences (KES vs. OPT)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
25 28 27 12 23 14 9 24 15 16 13 20 19 17 18 26 22 29
+13 +15 − 5 +12
T21 T20 T26 T19 T06 T01 T03 T23 T10 T25 T28 T24 T02 T16 T29 T18 T27 T17
− 4 +6 − 4 +5 − 5 − 5 − 9 − 3 − 5 − 8 − 8 − 1 − 6 0
Figure 4. Graphical representation of the differences verified between experimental assessment methods for the 29 tested tissue products. 3.2. Products Analysis (Rougher, Softer, and Highest Difference) Regarding the aforementioned two methods, KES and OPT, besides the fact that they were the most concordant of the four that were considered, one other interesting finding caught our attention; in particular, both of them agreed on the selection of the worst and best cases in terms of softness. A difference of zero in the first row and in the last row of the fourth column of Table 6 indicates precisely this point. These cases are associated with the tissue products T15 and T17, respectively. Even more interesting is that these two products are, in fact, very peculiar. They are both very different when compared to each other, being that the product T15 is a very thin 2-ply product of the industrial line, whereas the product T17 is the complete opposite. This last one is a very bulky 5-ply product of the commercial line. Figures 5 and 6 show the 3D maps that were obtained for these two tissue products,
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator