Rheology of Printing Inks

  • A. Tabbernor


Rheology is the study of the flow and deformation of matter. The aim of this science is to define and evaluate such words as consistency, tack length of flow, stiffness and body in terms of the physical properties of the materials. These words are used in everyday language and with special significance in many sections of industry. At first sight such terms may appear to be self-explanatory and simple to define, in fact the converse is true and the greater the need for precision the greater is the complexity of separating the factors involved.


Shear Rate Apparent Viscosity Plastic Viscosity Newtonian Liquid Shear Stress Shear Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Newton, Isaac. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 2. (1687).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vincent, J. E. Chemistry of aluminium — organics in the preparation of ink vehicles and gel varnishes. Am. Ink Maker 62(10), 25–6, 28–30, 32, 34, 34B, 104 (Oct. 1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Love, D. J. The modification of lithographic inks with Manchem aluminium compounds. Polym. Paint Col. J. 173(4109), 837–8 (14/28 Dec. 1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodeve, and Whitfield, Trans. Faraday Soc. 44, 652 (1940).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stockhauser, N. Cup viscometers: a testing method with limits. Paper presented at Fogra — Symposium Drucktechnik Forschungsergebnisse für die Praxis, Fogra, Munich (4–5 April 1984) 17pp. (PM10263G.)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Wazer, Lyon, Kim, and Colwell, Viscosity and Flow Measurement. Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douglas, A. F., Lewis, G. A., and Spaull, A. J. B. The investigation of the dynamic visco-elastic functions of printing inks. Rheol. Acta 10, 382–6 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Routine measures of the viscosity of paint samples. JOCCA 49(7) (1966).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turner, British Ink Maker 15(2) (1973).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Experts Committee in Rheology. British Ink Maker 17(4) (1975).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Voet, Ink and Paper in the Printing Process. Interscience Publishers (1952).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strasburger, F. Coll. Sci. 13, 218 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Myers, Miller, and Zettlemoyer, F, Coll. Sci. 14, 287 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mill, British Ink Maker 6(2) (1964).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitfield, British Ink Maker 7(2) (1965).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    European study of tack measurement — interim report. British Ink Maker 15(2) (1973).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mill, Chemistry and Industry. (1952), p. 159.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turner, British Ink Maker 18(2) (1976).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    PATRA tackmeter. British Ink Maker 5(3), (1963).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cartwright and Lott, The Metal Box/Churchill tackmeter. British Ink Maker 4(4), (1962).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Hessen, The Tack-O-Scope. Am. ink Maker 41 (Jan. 1963).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Souty, G. R. A comparison of commercial tackmeters. British Ink Maker 10(3) (1968).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aspler, J. S. et al. Rheological properties of new inks and surface strength test liquids. Advances in Printing Science and Technology, Vol. 16, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Printing Research Institutes, Key Biscayne, Florida, June 1981, pp. 235–51. (Pentech Press for IARIGAI, London, 1982, 467pp. (1310/BK1859).)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schubert, F. G. et al. Low shear viscosity of publication gravure inks and its implications. Taga Proc. 219–29 (1984).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whitfield, Lithographic Technology. PIRA/IARIGA (1970).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ritz, A. and Rech, H. Determination of the Rheological Magnitudes of Inks in the Inking Unit of an Offset Machine. Forschungsbericht S. 204, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft für Druck-und Reproducktions-technik e v (Fogra), Munich, (1978) 292pp. (PMS 847.)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ritz, A. Determination of the rheological magnitudes of inks in the inking mechanism of an offset litho press. FORGA Mitt. 27(96), 10–11 (Aug. 1978). (In German.)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bauer, M. Decker, P. and Bosse, R. Relationship between Ink Viscosity and Tack; Theoretical Analysis and Laboratory Experiments Carried Out on an Offset Press. Forschungsbericht 5.00G, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft für Druck-und Reproduktions-technik e v (Fogra), Munich (1977) 35pp. (In German.) (PM 4119.)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tasker W. et al. Water pick-up test for lithographic inks. Taga Proc. 176–90 (1983).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Surland, A. Factors determining the efficiency of lithographic inks. Taga Proc. 191–236 (1983).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Braun, F. Studies of offset inks — the effect of pigments on the formation of emulsions. Am. Ink Maker 63(2), 26–48 (Feb. 1985).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bassemir, R. W. The physical chemistry of lithographic inks. Am. Ink Maker 59(2), 33, 36, 41–2, 44, 46, 98 (Feb. 1981).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andersen, J. H. and Jensen, H. Rheological Properties of Liquid Inks. T2–82T Horsholm Denmark: Scandinavian Paint and Printing Ink Research Institute (1982) 69pp. (In Danish.)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Babula, S. Viscosity is only one aspect of rheology that determines ink distribution. Flexo 9(3) 21–3 (March 1984).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Babula, S. Viscosity is not enough — a study of the behaviour of ink in the distribution system of a flexographic press. In Report of the Proceedings of the Colour Conference, 6–7 Dec. 1983, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 61–4. (New York Flexographic Technical Association, 163pp.)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frecska, T. Viscosity measurements. A challenge for screen printers. Screen Print 56–9, 124 (July 1984).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frecska, T. The operating characteristics of screen printing inks. Screen Print. 72 (6), 62–5 (June 1982).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Messerschmitt, E. The continuing story on viscosity. Screen Print. 50–7, 60 (Aug. 1984).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Messerschmitt, E. Rheological considerations for screen printing inks. Screen Print. 72(10), 62–5 (Sept. 1982).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Messerschmitt, E. Rheological considerations for screen printing inks. Part II. Screen Print. 72(11) 136–9 (Oct. 1982).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Messerschmitt, E. Rheological considerations for screen printing inks. Part III. Screen Print. 72(12) 80–3 (Nov 1982).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Messerschmitt, E. The release of printing ink from the screen. Siebruck 26(11), 702, 704, 706, 708–10 (Nov. 1980). (In German.)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kirby, S. From tankers to tank. Ink and Print. 3(1) 16–17 (March 1985).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kirby, S. Saving multicolour costs with automatic ink pumping systems. Lithoweek 6(35), 42 (29 Aug. 1984).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Quilliam, B. L. Development of a system of computerized automatic ink-flow control. Taga Proc. 89–103 (1983).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of British Printing Ink Manufacturers Ltd 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Tabbernor
    • 1
  1. 1.Mander-Kidd (UK) Ltd.UK

Personalised recommendations