Testing philosophy

The objective is controlled comparison across filament brands, material families, colors and reinforced variants. A result is most useful when the same specimen design, orientation, equipment and calculation path are used repeatedly. The database therefore emphasizes consistency and transparency over claiming laboratory certification.

Printing standard

Specimens are printed using a controlled internal test profile so that material-to-material differences are not hidden by changing geometry or general print strategy. Material-specific temperature requirements may differ, but the comparative workflow keeps the remaining relevant settings consistent within each test family.

• Specimens are printed in defined flat and upright orientations when the test requires both.
• The same specimen geometry and repeatable slicer strategy are used for comparable materials.
• Test specimens are inspected before measurement; samples damaged during printing or removal are not treated as valid measurements.
• Material preparation, including drying where required, is recorded as part of the practical test context.

Important: Print temperature, moisture, cooling, machine calibration, color additives and manufacturing batch can all affect the measured result. The database represents the tested spool and documented print conditions.

Statistics, confidence and interpretation

3DPIceland internal comparative repeatability scale

The consistency score preserves the established formula: 100 minus average tensile/impact CV%, minus a small incomplete-sample penalty. It describes repeatability inside this test workflow, not accredited instrument accuracy or an industry standard.

• 90–100: excellent repeatability.
• 85–89.9: very good repeatability.
• 80–84.9: good repeatability.
• 70–79.9: moderate, usable repeatability.
• 60–69.9: low repeatability.
• Below 60: very low repeatability.

With complete ten-specimen sets and no sample penalty, these bands correspond approximately to average CV ranges of 0–10%, 10–15%, 15–20%, 20–30%, 30–40% and above 40% respectively.

How to read the results

• High tensile strength: good resistance to pulling along the printed structure.
• High layer adhesion strength: stronger bonding across layer boundaries.
• High impact resistance: greater energy absorption before fracture or severe deformation.
• High stiffness: less bending under load, but not automatically greater impact toughness or layer adhesion.

Known limitations

• The equipment is purpose-built comparative equipment, not an accredited universal testing machine.
• Specimen geometry and procedures are internal 3DPIceland Labs methods rather than direct ISO/ASTM replicas.
• The thermal result is the nearby BlueDOT probe-indicated fixture temperature, not specimen-core temperature, ASTM D648 or ISO 75 HDT.
• The oven ramp is non-linear and the BlueDOT has no user calibration option; elapsed time and displayed probe temperature must not be presented as calibrated specimen temperature.
• The impact pointer can be affected by pivot tension, fastener adjustment and room/equipment temperature; free movement and the stop mechanism are checked before a session.
• The tensile carriage has a practical low-force resistance floor, commonly around 7–8 N, so very weak specimens require cautious interpretation.
• The stiffness fixture can show roughly 10–15 degrees of repeat-placement/reading variation; small differences near that range should not be treated as decisive.
• Printed polymers are anisotropic; a single result cannot describe every loading direction or part geometry.
• Very flexible materials may bend or pass through an impact event without a conventional brittle fracture, requiring cautious interpretation.
• Extremely strong or ductile materials can approach the usable range of a fixture and may need a future method revision.
• Results can be influenced by spool moisture, pigment, reinforcement, printer condition and batch-to-batch variation.

The most reliable use of this database is comparison between materials tested by the same 3DPIceland Labs workflow—not treating an individual number as a certified design allowable.