Research & Development
3D Materials Lab
Custom tensile and abrasion test rigs plus a public data platform — comparable material data where manufacturer datasheets fall short.
- Client
- Internal R&D
- Timeline
- Ongoing
- Deliverables
- Tensile testing rig, Abrasion testing rig, Test automation scripts, Public data platform
The problem
Filament manufacturers publish performance data using different machines, specimen geometries, test standards and conditions, so published specs can't be compared side by side.
Constraints
Reliable comparative data without formal ASTM certification. A fully repeatable, transparent method. All test hardware designed and built in-house from made parts and off-the-shelf components.
Development approach
Designed a mechanical pivot-arm tensile tester and converted a motion platform into a controlled abrasion rig, with standardized specimens, scripted test cycles and one data pipeline from test to public chart.
Material data is technically abundant and practically useless for a direct, side-by-side evaluation. Different test standards, equipment and conditions mean a designer choosing a material for a functional part is left with manufacturer claims and anecdotes.
A method built on repeatability
The core principle is consistency: every material is tested on the same equipment, with the same specimen geometry, under the same conditions, through the same data pipeline. Absolute values matter less than comparative accuracy. The method is informed by ASTM standards — particularly specimen geometry and load application — but no formal certification is claimed.
The tensile rig
Designed and built in-house: a mechanical, pivot-arm tester with no electronics or firmware, standardized coupons, and failure observation built into the design. Keeping it mechanical removes a layer of variability, so loading stays consistent across every run.
The abrasion rig
A consumer motion platform was converted into a controlled wear tester. A custom abrasion head designed in Fusion 360 rides repeatable G-code stroke paths, with test cycles generated by a custom Python tool and adjustable parameters for different materials.
From test to public data
Python scripts run the tests, and a Next.js platform with Chart.js publishes the results — filterable tables, per-test pages and side-by-side comparisons in consistent units. The method is published with the data so users know exactly how it was produced and where its limits are.
Validation
Every material runs on the same equipment, specimen geometry, conditions and processing pipeline, so results compare like for like. Method and limitations are published alongside the data.
The outcome
A public material-testing platform with consistent, comparable performance data across brands and materials, at 3dmaterialslab.com.
Capabilities
Have a problem like this?
Send us a sketch, photo, CAD file, existing part — or just explain the problem.
Start a ProjectNext project
Digitizing Legacy Bodywork for Future Development