journal article·2025-05Open access

Statistical density analysis of squeegee blade, and pressure on textile screen printing

Chao-Lung Yang, Chi-Hao Chien, Guan-Ying Chen, Shu-Yu Li

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of squeegee blade (natural rubber and polyurethane) and squeegee pressure on printing density in traditional textile screen printing. The research employed a 2 × 2 factorial design with two pressure levels (high and low) for each squeegee blade. Strain gauges and pressure sensors were installed to measure variations in printing density during the screen printing process. Results from statistical t-tests and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) reveal that the key factor affecting printing density is the squeegee blade, followed by squeegee pressure and the interaction between blade and pressure, under statistical significance (95% confidence level). Furthermore, the impact of blade on printing density varies depending on the pressure, with natural rubber squeegee blade achieving higher density values compared to polyurethane squeegee blade under both high- and low-pressure conditions. Under the same conditions, natural rubber squeegee blade exhibit smoother fluctuation in printing density, lower variation, higher tensile strength, and better printability than polyurethane squeegee blade. These findings provide empirical evidence for selecting appropriate squeegee blade and pressure settings in textile screen printing applications, potentially improving print quality and consistency across various printing scenarios.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Textile materials and evaluations · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Color Science and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology

Funding

National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.3390/jmmp503008910.3390/jmmp5030089 ↗
2. 10.1111/cote.1274610.1111/cote.12746 ↗
3. Global digital textile printing market size, share & trends analysis report by type (Direct-to-Garment, transfer printing, sublimation printing), by application (apparel, home textiles, industrial textiles), by region, and segment forecasts, 2022–2030, 2022.
4. Potts S-J. Advanced manufacture by screen printing. 2020.
5. 10.1016/0026-2714(75)90151-110.1016/0026-2714(75)90151-1 ↗
6. 10.1021/acsomega.1c0041810.1021/acsomega.1c00418 ↗
7. Chen J, Zhang Y. Polyurethane manufacturing. Chem Eng J 2023; 62(2): 361–370.
8. 10.1088/1742-6596/687/1/01208810.1088/1742-6596/687/1/012088 ↗
9. 10.21608/jtcps.2023.222715.123010.21608/jtcps.2023.222715.1230 ↗
10. Screen printing machines market size, share, trends, growth 2032. 2024.
11. 10.3390/ma1522793110.3390/ma15227931 ↗
12. 10.1243/095440601152086910.1243/0954406011520869 ↗
13. 10.1109/33.5617010.1109/33.56170 ↗
14. Davis R. Better squeegee choice. Impressions 2002; 26: 65.
15. Jangra V, Saini A, Sharma S. Solid ink density in relation with dot gain in sheet-fed offset printing. Inter J Sci Engine Comp Tech 2013; 3: 173–176.
16. 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2005.49.1.art0000810.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2005.49.1.art00008 ↗
17. 10.24867/JGED-2018-1-02310.24867/JGED-2018-1-023 ↗
18. Prasad S. Adhesive deposition through stencil printing for surface mount assembly. State University of New York at Binghamton, Watson School of Engineering and …, 1997.
19. A Guide to Understanding Graphic Arts Densitometry. U.S.A.: X-Rite Incorporated 2003.
20. 10.1108/prt-05-2019-004310.1108/prt-05-2019-0043 ↗
21. 10.1039/C5CP06383C10.1039/C5CP06383C ↗
22. 10.5254/1.353849610.5254/1.3538496 ↗
23. Makridakis SG, Wheelwright SC. Interactive forecasting: univariate and multivariate methods. Holden Day, 1978.
24. 10.1016/S0167-9473(03)00009-410.1016/S0167-9473(03)00009-4 ↗
25. 10.2307/191412210.2307/1914122 ↗
26. 10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2020.64.5.05040610.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2020.64.5.050406 ↗
27. 10.1243/09544080332261167910.1243/095440803322611679 ↗
28. Atkinson M. The “Zen” of manual printing. Impressions 2015; 39: 54–57.
29. Jewell E. The influence of squeegee parameters on ink deposit in UV halftone screen printing. TAGA Journal 2006; 3.
30. 10.3139/978156990554810.3139/9781569905548 ↗
31. 10.3390/polym1511256610.3390/polym15112566 ↗
32. 10.1007/BF0287588110.1007/BF02875881 ↗
33. 10.3390/coatings402035610.3390/coatings4020356 ↗
34. 10.5604/01.3001.0010.697510.5604/01.3001.0010.6975 ↗
35. Capanidis D, Wieleba W. Badania odporności na ścieranie wybranych gatunków stali trudnościeralnych oraz wysokowytrzymałych. Tribologia, 2005, pp. 23–33.
36. 10.35530/IT.073.04.175810.35530/IT.073.04.1758 ↗
37. Dumitrescu I, Nello LP, Iordache OG, et al. The influence of the textile materials structure on the screen printed circuits’ characteristics/Influenta structurii materialelor textile asupra caracteristicilor circuitelor imprimate cu sabloane. Industria Textila 2014; 65: 310–317.
38. 10.1108/0954091961077765410.1108/09540919610777654 ↗