<p>The success metrics are entirely up to you, the user of the printed part. For example, the strength of the part under the load it's desgined for will be critical for an end-use part (such as as hook), but doesn't matter at all for a fit or appearance prototype. Conversely, the dimensional accuracy is very important for a fit model prototyping a complex assembly, but might be unimportant for an appearance prototype or for some kinds of end-use parts.</p>

<p>Because there's a wide range of uses for printed parts, there's a wide range of possible metrics. Mostly they depend on the original design, the print options chosen (e.g. infill style), the material chosen, and the capabilities of the printer. Here are a few:</p>

<ul>
<li>Dimensional accuracy (of the part compared to the design)</li>
<li>Dimensional stability (does the part warp or shrink afterwards)</li>
<li>Total time to print + finish</li>
<li>Material cost of print (build materials and other consumables)</li>
<li>Weight of printed part</li>
<li>Labour of operating the printer and any post-processing</li>
<li>Surface appearance/smoothness (different for horizontal, vertical, angled, and curved surfaces)</li>
<li>Surface friction</li>
<li>Surface hardness (can you scratch it easily)</li>
<li>Colour accuracy (of the part compared to the design, for colour printing processes)</li>
<li>Colour stability (do they fade over time)</li>
<li>Colour resolution (are colour changes sharp or blurred)</li>
<li>Rigidity (different in different axes)</li>
<li>Failure load (different in different axes)</li>
<li>Non-adhesion across small gaps (as in a tolerance test)</li>
<li>Porosity (e.g. if printing a container for liquids or gases)</li>
</ul>

<p>A big cross-cutting metric is repeatability. If you make the same print again the next day and repeat any of these measurements, how different a result do you get?</p>

<p>There are also some metrics that are more about the material choice than the way it's printed:</p>

<ul>
<li>Outgassing</li>
<li>Flammability</li>
<li>Toxicity</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-12T10:51:05.373Z
2019-04-12T10:51:05.373Z
Dan Hulme
<p>I'm doing some testing for objects in 3D printing for a report. I'm trying to get success metrics for it but a bit unsure of what else I could do since would ideally like hard values for it. For example, I have:</p>

<ul>
<li>Filament needed</li>
<li>Volume</li>
<li>Ease of removal</li>
<li>Weight</li>
<li>Time of print</li>
</ul>

<p>Would anyone know anything else? </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T17:16:53.460Z
Not entirely sure what you mean by *success metrics*... could you be a bit more specific? What sort of objects? Do you mean calibration cubes, or any type of object? If the former, then *accuracy/tolerance* could be useful... i.e. if you are trying to print a 10 mm cube, then how close to 10 mm is the final print, and/or what is the deviation? Maybe expand a little upon your question and what are you trying to achieve, and why... it sounds as if you are a little unsure yourself and are fishing for ideas... Also, are you testing the printer [quality/calibration] or the object [design] itself?
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T17:21:26.523Z
Hi and welcome to SE.3DP BTW! :-)
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T17:22:55.663Z
I would not use any of these metrics for success - the best metric for the success/failure rate I have is *complexity* and the *bed surface / height* ratio.
Trish
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T17:55:09.297Z
@Trish - Can you help me understand how either one of those metrics helps define "success"? Complexity is a subjective metric (if you can indeed call it a metric). Bed surface-to-height ratio has only to do with the physical dimensions of the printer itself. That would imply a tall printer with a small bed would be more successful than a short printer with a large bed (or visa-versa). Can you help me understand?
Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T18:32:29.277Z
as a note: the metrics you look at are all *economic*. The *success* of a printed object comes down to factors like the precision of the printer and the amount of time spent on finetuning the slicing profile together with the use of disuse of support (increasing bed surface to height ratio) and the complexity of the print (more complex=less success)
Trish
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T19:00:02.453Z
@Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 Complexity is a *relative* metric - a rod is low complex, a screw higher, a trapped nut on a capped bolt even higher. it can be also an objective metric - as the number of trigons of a model or the number of direction changes of a g-code. Tall objects indeed fail more often than flat/wide ones - usually due to tipping or breaking/losing some overhung area.
Trish
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T19:07:28.953Z
From [Trish's chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49893509#49893509):
Greenonline
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-11T19:07:40.513Z
*a finished print is a successful one, any print that does not is a failed print. The number of successful prints is antiproportional to the number of distinct outlines and the proportional to the length of said outlines (in other words: low complexity = more sucessful) while a high ratio of the occupied surface compared to the height also is good for the number of successful prints. in other words: if you print a flat pyramid standing on the tip, activate support to get surface. If you print thin parts, print them alone. Tall prints are generally less successful as prone to small errors.*
Greenonline
<print-quality>
Success metrics for 3D prints
User0110101
# Success metrics for 3D prints

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-11)

I'm doing some testing for objects in 3D printing for a report. I'm trying to get success metrics for it but a bit unsure of what else I could do since would ideally like hard values for it. For example, I have:

* Filament needed
* Volume
* Ease of removal
* Weight
* Time of print

Would anyone know anything else?

**Tags:** print-quality

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not entirely sure what you mean by *success metrics*... could you be a bit more specific? What sort of objects? Do you mean calibration cubes, or any type of object? If the former, then *accuracy/tolerance* could be useful... i.e. if you are trying to print a 10 mm cube, then how close to 10 mm is the final print, and/or what is the deviation? Maybe expand a little upon your question and what are you trying to achieve, and why... it sounds as if you are a little unsure yourself and are fishing for ideas... Also, are you testing the printer [quality/calibration] or the object [design] itself?  
> **username_1**: Hi and welcome to SE.3DP BTW! :-)  
> **username_2**: I would not use any of these metrics for success - the best metric for the success/failure rate I have is *complexity* and the *bed surface / height* ratio.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 - Can you help me understand how either one of those metrics helps define "success"? Complexity is a subjective metric (if you can indeed call it a metric). Bed surface-to-height ratio has only to do with the physical dimensions of the printer itself. That would imply a tall printer with a small bed would be more successful than a short printer with a large bed (or visa-versa). Can you help me understand?  
> **username_2**: as a note: the metrics you look at are all *economic*. The *success* of a printed object comes down to factors like the precision of the printer and the amount of time spent on finetuning the slicing profile together with the use of disuse of support (increasing bed surface to height ratio) and the complexity of the print (more complex=less success)  
> **username_2**: @username_3 Complexity is a *relative* metric - a rod is low complex, a screw higher, a trapped nut on a capped bolt even higher. it can be also an objective metric - as the number of trigons of a model or the number of direction changes of a g-code. Tall objects indeed fail more often than flat/wide ones - usually due to tipping or breaking/losing some overhung area.  
> **username_1**: From [username_2's chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/49893509#49893509):  
> **username_1**: *a finished print is a successful one, any print that does not is a failed print. The number of successful prints is antiproportional to the number of distinct outlines and the proportional to the length of said outlines (in other words: low complexity = more sucessful) while a high ratio of the occupied surface compared to the height also is good for the number of successful prints. in other words: if you print a flat pyramid standing on the tip, activate support to get surface. If you print thin parts, print them alone. Tall prints are generally less successful as prone to small errors.*  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-04-12. Score: 1

The success metrics are entirely up to you, the user of the printed part. For example, the strength of the part under the load it's desgined for will be critical for an end-use part (such as as hook), but doesn't matter at all for a fit or appearance prototype. Conversely, the dimensional accuracy is very important for a fit model prototyping a complex assembly, but might be unimportant for an appearance prototype or for some kinds of end-use parts.

Because there's a wide range of uses for printed parts, there's a wide range of possible metrics. Mostly they depend on the original design, the print options chosen (e.g. infill style), the material chosen, and the capabilities of the printer. Here are a few:

* Dimensional accuracy (of the part compared to the design)
* Dimensional stability (does the part warp or shrink afterwards)
* Total time to print + finish
* Material cost of print (build materials and other consumables)
* Weight of printed part
* Labour of operating the printer and any post-processing
* Surface appearance/smoothness (different for horizontal, vertical, angled, and curved surfaces)
* Surface friction
* Surface hardness (can you scratch it easily)
* Colour accuracy (of the part compared to the design, for colour printing processes)
* Colour stability (do they fade over time)
* Colour resolution (are colour changes sharp or blurred)
* Rigidity (different in different axes)
* Failure load (different in different axes)
* Non-adhesion across small gaps (as in a tolerance test)
* Porosity (e.g. if printing a container for liquids or gases)

A big cross-cutting metric is repeatability. If you make the same print again the next day and repeat any of these measurements, how different a result do you get?

There are also some metrics that are more about the material choice than the way it's printed:

* Outgassing
* Flammability
* Toxicity


---

