I was wondering whether there is somewhere a dataset collecting the mechanical properties of different filaments.

Some filament vendors provide some mechanical properties data about their filament, others don’t. On the few comparison I was able to make, I noticed big differences among the same filament type, such as PLA+.

For example, regarding the Flexural Modulus, one brand of PLA+ could report 4175Mpa, while another one reports 1973Mpa. Clearly, the second offers a much higher Elongation at Break. This means that depending on the application, it could make sense to select one brand of filament with respect to another (of the same type).

I would expect this type of mechanical properties to be easy to fetch, but a lot of vendors provide only how accurate the diameter of their filaments is.

(edit: typo)

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    10 months ago

    A word to the wise, different brands of “PLA+” are not the same filament. There is no standard or even consensus on what qualifies a particular polymer alloy as “PLA+” and thus every manufacturer does their own thing and just calls it whatever they feel like. The same is true for “PLA Pro” and “PLA Extreme” or “PLA Tough” or whatever other monikers you can find.

    I would not be at all surprised to find some unscrupulous vendor selling just ordinary PLA and calling it “PLA+” just for marketing purposes (a.k.a. lying about it).

    • nuk1ngCatOPEnglish
      4·
      10 months ago

      Thanks a lot for for corroborating the issue. Indeed, I am aware that labeling could be blurry since everyone keeps the blends used for their filament secret. This is the reason why I am interested in knowing if someone collected the numbers. Being able to compare Elastic Modulus, Elongation at Break, etc. could solve the problem of having to use the labels when picking a filament (considering also the cost $$). PLA+ was just an example, where everyone says that it’s “more though” than “ordinary PLA”, which I could translate with “less brittle”. However, without absolute numbers the information contained in such statements is laughable.

      Without numbers, either I just wait to have a bit of experience with different filaments, or I will need watch all those videos with users printing hooks and running tensile test on them.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      I would not be at all surprised to find some unscrupulous vendor selling just ordinary PLA and calling it “PLA+” just for marketing purposes (a.k.a. lying about it).

      I expect that to be the vast majority of them, actually.

  • morbidcactus@lemmy.caEnglish
    7·
    10 months ago

    So prusa totally does maintain a material props page it’s not exhaustive nor does it have full details for every filament they list but it does have a lot of info. Includes into about hotend and bed temps, enclosure and surface recommendations, deflection temperature, impact resistance and tensile strengths.

    Might be a good place to start, love the idea of an open, community maintained mech props db

    • nuk1ngCatOPEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      Yes, it’s definitely a good point of information. It looks like it was also referenced in the Prusa blog: Advanced Filament Guide.

      That post is a bit old (2020), and I fear it has not been updated in a while, considering that the post writer replied only in the first year and all the following comments ended up without replies. It is a pity, considering also that the post ended with a sort of request for users to propose new filaments to test. I see that the last comment is fairly recent (2024) so I guess someone is trying to get more information to be added. Alas, it’s kind of understandable: it could be expensive and time consuming to test other brands filaments for the sake of keeping the maker community happy.

      In the post seems that the data collected in the table is coming from real tests made at Prusa Research, so this makes me hope that the experiment setup has been kept the same for the different tests.

      • morbidcactus@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        I wouldn’t be surprised if prusa has a lab for qa purposes and they used that for the testing. And yeah I totally get it, I’d assume that at least prusament entries are up to date.

        On a plus, definitely feel like I see mech props in product info more often, I’ve been using Canadian Filaments Carbon Capture PETG lately, they give UTS, Tensile Modulus and Impact Strength.

        • nuk1ngCatOPEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          It’s strange that they provide that information for the Carbon Capture PETG and they skipped all the remaining filaments, included the standard PETG. Maybe, they just started testing and adding that info to their products.

          I am new to the field, so I cannot judge, but I am happy to hear that you noticed an increase in the mech props reporting. Hopefully, that will be the standard.

  • yak@lmy.brx.ioEnglish
    5·
    10 months ago

    I think such a dataset would be very useful. I’m just getting in to 3D printing and have spent a little bit of time hunting for this type of information already. I’ve had to stick to star ratings on vendor sites so far.

    • What are the physical properties it would be useful to track?
    • How are they measured/which standard is being followed?
    • How do they relate to practical matters like ideal extruder temperature and velocities for particular properties or effects?

    (Edit: typo)

    • nuk1ngCatOPEnglish
      5·
      10 months ago

      Currently, there are some vendors that provide a lot of information about some of their filaments. I cannot say anything about how accurate or trustworthy they are, though. Unfortunately, as reported here by other users, it looks like the market if filled by “cunning” sellers who are not transparent regarding how they asses the properties of their filaments. Anyway, as far as the physical properties to track are concerned, one of the most extensive table I found reported:

      • Density [g/cm³]
      • Elongation at Break [%]
      • Tensile Strength [Mpa]
      • Flexural Strength [Mpa]
      • Flexural Modulus [Mpa]
      • Young’s Modulus [Mpa],
      • Izod Impact Strength [KJ/m²]
      • Melting Point [°C],
      • Melt Index [g/10min]
      • Heat Deflection Temperature [°C]

      I could think that with those you can have some idea about how good the material will be for mechanical parts.

      There are other properties which are sometimes advertised as “chemical resistance” which are often left without a reference.

      Apart from the data you can get from the sellers, I found a table that, even if not providing a thorough analysis of the filaments in terms of the properties listed before, it looks like an attempt to gather together data to help user chose the right filament for their application: Prusa Research - Material Table

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    10 months ago

    I agree, this or at least some sort of standard 3rd party quality metrics that could be a badge of honor for reliable vendors would be helpful. Also a list of which ones are edible.

  • rambos@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    10 months ago

    There are some tests on CNC kitchen (youtube), but dont think you can find values to compare different manufacturers. For 3D printed models its more important how good layer bond is, what orientation and other settings (temp, line width, layer height, speed) have been used. But yeah, I would love to see mechanical properties on each spool

    • nuk1ngCatOPEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      I saw those videos: they are interesting.

      You are right, the fact that the 3D printed object are anisotropic add an extra variable to the game. You could use the strongest filament, but if the layer are oriented in the wrong direction you will get a poor results.

      I don’t know if to avoid such issue, it could make sense for the producer to test molded specimens of filament (cylinders or bricks). In this way they will consider only the material itself. However, the inter-layer bonding properties will anyway play a role when actually printing, so there is the risk that those number won’t translate into the printed object properties. Otherwise, they could leverage their experience and claim that the tests were made in optimal conditions, so that you know that that’s an upper-bound.