Equasion to compensate for shrinkage

[Tovis]

x= intended size
y= shrinkage size

s= shrinkage percentage
c=correctional length

s= 1 - (y / x)

c= (1 + s) x

For a quick fix, I want to figure out what size I can enter in the rip to compensate for shrinkage.

This set of equations look correct?

 

[Gino]

Just don't walk in cold water and your problem should go away.............



Okay.... when we print, various vinyls shrink at different rates. Also, colors and how much ink going down also causes for slight varying. Seems there are too many variables to come up with a concrete formula.

 

[Tovis]

I know, it is just a quick formula for one application. Also, it is being printed on a textile.

 

[MikeD]

equation looks correct, but as Gino stated, there are too many variables to make a rule.

 

[Tovis]

Is it taking into factor the shrinkage that will be tacked on though?

 

[MikeD]

the amount of shrinkage varies between different media and even from print to print; heavy ink versus light ink.

 

[Tovis]

Heat being applied to a textile can also be a factor - I understand this. Solid math should get me closer so I can compensate for something that needs to be exact if heat shrinkage is theoretically a constant for this substrate. I am also going to attempt to lower the heat to see what the minimum heat would be to dry the latex as well to get closer prior to applying the equation.

 

[bob]

x= intended size
y= shrinkage size

s= shrinkage percentage
c=correctional length

s= 1 - (y / x)

c= (1 + s) x

For a quick fix, I want to figure out what size I can enter in the rip to compensate for shrinkage.

This set of equations look correct?

All of that would appear to reduce to 2x-y which intuitively doesn't seem quite right since it's linear. I should think that something like x^2/y might yield a better number.

 

[TheSnowman]

Sorry, I couldn't stop myself...it's all I could think of when I read that.

 

[Tovis]

All of that would appear to reduce to 2x-y which intuitively doesn't seem quite right since it's linear. I should think that something like x^2/y might yield a better number.

that being C?

c = x^2/y

 

[Tovis]

Thanks bob, that does look a little better.

 

[gnemmas]

Does laminator stretch the prints?