Print Surface Finishing: Abrasion Resistance Test Results
Source: pack168.com | Published: May 2013
Packaging isn’t just about looking good on the shelf. A box gets handled, stacked, dragged across conveyor rails, knocked around in shipping. If the surface finish can’t take the punishment, the package shows up wrecked before the customer ever lays eyes on it.
That’s what makes GB/T 7705-2008, China’s national standard for abrasion resistance in offset printed products, worth knowing. It gives you a repeatable way to compare matte lamination against gloss varnish, foil stamping against screen printing. Not by feel or guesswork — by measuring density drop after controlled rubbing.
Here’s what the test reveals about which finishes actually hold up.
The Standard: GB/T 7705-2008
Before any abrasion test, the printed sample has to meet visual quality benchmarks. If it isn’t good enough to ship, there’s no point rubbing it.
GB/T 7705 defines two quality grades — fine product and general product — with criteria for cleanliness, print clarity, scratches, dot quality, and color match. For lamination and varnishing specifically:
| Finish Type | Fine Product | General Product |
|---|---|---|
| No surface treatment | No spots >0.3mm (main), ≤2 spots max | No spots >1.5mm (main), ≤2 max |
| Foil/screen | Complete, clear, no ghosting or pinholes | No obvious ghosting or stains |
| Lamination | Clean, flat, no wrinkles or bubbles | Essentially clean, no obvious wrinkles |
| Varnishing | Uniform coating, no bubbles or streaks | Basically uniform, minor bubbles acceptable |
If a sample passes visual inspection, it moves to the abrasion test.
How the Test Works
The test rig is simple. Two 25mm × 50mm rubbing blocks press down with a combined load of 20 ± 0.2 N onto an 80 g/m² offset paper rubbing strip (50mm wide). The strip slides back and forth across the sample surface over a 60mm stroke at 43 ± 2 cycles per minute.
As the rubbing paper drags across the printed surface, both surfaces shed fibers and particles. Those loose particles get ground between them, accelerating the wear. After a set number of cycles, you measure the density at the rubbed spot with a densitometer and compare it to the pre-rub density.
The abrasion resistance coefficient:
Abrasion Resistance = D / D₀ × 100%
Where D is the average post-rub density and D₀ is the average pre-rub density. A coefficient of 100% means the finish took zero visible damage. The lower the number, the more the surface degraded.
Equipment used in the original study: GBH-ST friction tester, X-Rite 518 densitometer, 80 g/m² offset paper as the rubbing medium.
The Results: 43 Cycles
Four sample types were tested under identical conditions at 43 rub cycles:
| Finish Type | Pre-Rub Density (avg) | Post-Rub Density (avg) | Abrasion Resistance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matte lamination | 1.543 | 1.493 | 96.8% |
| Gloss lamination | 2.237 | 2.160 | 96.6% |
| Matte varnish | 1.953 | 1.847 | 94.6% |
| Gloss varnish | 2.253 | 1.940 | 86.1% |
Film lamination wins, hands down. Both matte and gloss film held above 96% after 43 rub cycles. The varnishes dropped more — matte varnish at 94.6% is respectable, but gloss varnish at 86.1% took a real hit. If you’re spec’ing a finish for a package that will see rough handling, lamination is the safer bet.
Extended Testing: 500 to 1500 Cycles
Pushing further, all four finishes held up reasonably well through 500 cycles. After that, things got interesting.
At 1,500 cycles, foil stamping showed zero visible change. The metallic layer underneath the stamping pigment simply doesn’t abrade the same way ink-based finishes do. Screen printing, on the other hand, developed clear scratch marks that worsened with each additional cycle. If the package design calls for screen-printed elements in high-wear areas, you should expect visible degradation over time.
What This Means for Package Spec Decisions
The data tells you a few things that matter on the production floor:
- Lamination over varnish, every time, if abrasion resistance is the priority. The 10-point gap between gloss lamination (96.6%) and gloss varnish (86.1%) is significant.
- Matte vs. gloss doesn’t matter much within the same category. Matte lamination (96.8%) and gloss lamination (96.6%) are effectively tied. Matte varnish (94.6%) and gloss varnish (86.1%) are not — gloss varnish is noticeably weaker.
- Foil stamping handles abrasion far better than screen printing. If your design has metallic elements that must survive handling, stamp rather than screen them.
- Surface treatment beats no treatment. An untreated printed surface has nothing between the ink and the abrasion source. Even a thin varnish layer provides meaningful protection.
Conclusion
If you’re choosing a surface finish based on what “feels premium” or whatever the sales team likes that week, you’re guessing. GB/T 7705-2008 gives you numbers instead. Run the test on your own substrates with your own inks and finishes — the ranking (lamination > varnish, foil > screen) should hold, but actual coefficients shift with materials.
For packages that will get handled, stacked, or shipped, laminate when the budget allows. If varnish is the choice, go matte. And wherever metallic graphics sit in high-touch areas, stamp them.
Density tolerances and tone value targets for offset printing are covered in ISO 12647-2:2013, which provides the international framework for process control relevant to the measurement methods used here.
References
- GB/T 7705-2008 — Offset Lithographic Prints — Requirements for Quality and Test Methods: Chinese national standard defining visual quality grades and abrasion resistance test methodology for offset printed products.
- Wikipedia: Lamination: Overview of lamination processes including film lamination used in print finishing and packaging.
- Wikipedia: Varnish: Description of varnish types, formulations, and application in print finishing as a protective coating.
- Wikipedia: Hot Stamping: Process description of foil stamping, die types, and application in packaging decoration.
- ISO 12647-2:2013 — Offset Lithographic Processes: International process control standard covering tone value increase, colorimetry, and print quality metrics related to density measurement.