Calibration of Ultimaker S5

[Knochi 0]

Hi

We bought a new shiny Ultimaker S5 printer a few weeks ago.

I did an object today which is basically a tube. It should have a 8.2mm bore and an outer Diameter of 25mm. It looks perfect, but doesn't fit in the end application. So i took out my caliper and checked the dimensions.

The 8.2mm bore is actually 7.7mm and the outer Diameter is 25.0mm +/- 0.1 depending on where you take the measure. I used the default settings and printed with ultimaker Black Though PLA that was delivered with the machine.

 

The Calibration print, which was in the box, looks nice but i cannot find any description what dimensions it should have.

I called my local support partner in germany and he told me to adjust the "horizontal expansion" parameter in the shell settings. We bought this printer with the expectation that a decent accuracy is achievable without tuning parameters in Cura when using a Ultimaker program to slice and Ultimaker materials to print.

 

See attached images.

[SandervG 1,521]

Could you give it a try with the following settings? We had some good results with these: 

Line width: 0.4
Wall thickness: 1.2
Top/Bottom thickness: 1.2
Speeds: 40
Jerks: 20
Horizontal expansion: -0.03
walls: 3

[chuckmcgee 7]

Definitely interested in tracking these results.  I love the quality of my prints on the s5, but the dimensions are seldom what I was expecting.  I just started a print with the horizontal expansion of -0.03 in hopes to get a product that fits my application.

[chuckmcgee 7]

Changing Horizon expansion to -0.03 was experience changing for me.  This was a magical thread.  Thank you.  And credit to @gr5 as well.  I know he tried to tell me to try -0.025 some time ago, and I did...but I didn't have a part to print that would be so sensitive to spec.  This setting just successfully printed a PETG part I have tried 5 times to no avail (only changing flow rate before this).

 

[Knochi 0]

Hello,

 

first of all the part mentioned above, fits with the proposed setting.

I prepared a test object to find the sweet spot between outer and inner Diameter change.

The Object has two inner Dias with 4.0mm and 8.0mm and two outer Dias with 10.0mm and 7.0mm.

I sliced three copies of them with 0.0 -0.025 and -0.05 horiz. Expansion Factor.

 

Here are the results:

• horz. exp. 0.0
  • 4.0 mm  --> 3.7mm
  • 8.0 mm  --> 7.8mm
  • 7.0 mm  --> 7.0mm
  • 10.0mm --> 10.0mm
• horz. exp. -0.025
  • 4.0mm   --> 3.8mm
  • 8.0mm   --> 7.9mm
  • 7.0mm   --> 7.0mm
  • 10.0mm --> 9.9mm
• horz. exp. -0.05
  • 4.0mm   --> 3.8mm
  • 8.0mm   --> 7.9mm
  • 7.0mm   --> 6.9mm
  • 10.0mm --> 9.8mm

Not really getting into precision printing. I also realized that the parts have a quite big "elephants foot" so the first layer is squashed.

You can see that on the photo.

 

Cu

David

 

horzExpansTest_0.stl

[gr5 2,167]

So Sander's profile will help a lot but at some point you have to adjust the dimensions in CAD if you want accuracy to 0.1mm or better.  If you change filament, change nozzle temperature, change room temperature, all these tolerances will change slightly.

 

The basic problem is that PLA sticks to itself even when liquid - like a liquid rubber band - like snot.  AS it's printing the inner vertical holes it is pulled inward because it is also cooling quite a bit in the first millisecond and is already shrinking.  So it's like stretching a rubber band around the inside of a circle and it is pulling more inward than you want it to go.

 

You will notice that when printing square holes the corners also are moved inward.

You will notice that when printing a cube the *outer* corners also might move inwards (although there is an opposite effect caused because the printer is slowing down and it over extrudes on the corners somewhat but Sander's profile above minimizes this).

 

I know it sounds like a pain to modify the parts in CAD but the same sort of thing is done with injection molding (although more likely by an engineer at the injection molding factory).

[chuckmcgee 7]

Thanks to all here.  Very informative post.  I do get that the best tolerances can be built for in CAD (and I usually do).  Unfortunately, I was having to print a complex part that someone else designed.  All I had was an STL, but the print was part of a bigger installation where I needed better accuracy than I was getting with the default profile.  The horizon expansion adjustment (to -0.03) allowed me to get the expected tolerances without any other changes.  And this was printing with PETG (Polymaker Lite).

[JohnInOttawa 104]

Great thread! 

 

I would be curious to know how closely these expansion parameters transfer to the UM3.  I would like to dial dimensional tolerance in a bit better there as well.

 

Thanks

John

[Knochi 0]

HI together,

 

Ok so it remains a "per Object" tuning process. I must admit that my first though upon this topic was, "damn we should have bought that super high precision printer from the other company". That other company is claiming to fill the gap between industrial and desktop printers. I went back to their spec and well... their METHODs doesn't seem to be as good as thought.

 

Quote

• - Match design dimensions
• - Dimensional accuracy of ±0.2mm^*

So glad that we bought the more open system allowing to use other materials than only PLA and PETG from special spools.

 

By the way... are there other materials with less expansion?

 

Cu

David

 

[Labern 774]

To help remove the elephant's foot you can lower the initial layer height to 0.1.

I also use initial layer horizontal expansion set to -0.2 for a 0.4mm nozzle.

I normally adjust my designs so holes are +0.3 for small holes through to +0.1 for large holes. as the smaller the hole the bigger the pull-in effect effects the size of the hole. 

[Labern 774]

12 hours ago, JohnInOttawa said:

Great thread! 

 

I would be curious to know how closely these expansion parameters transfer to the UM3.  I would like to dial dimensional tolerance in a bit better there as well.

 

Thanks

John

It pretty much works for every printer. I use it sometimes on my UM2+, The amount of adjustment required may change per printer though. 

[malencar 1]

I also own an S5 and have issues with tolerance accuracy and... please forgive my ignorance for asking this, but why wouldn't the correct horizontal expansion setting be built into the Ultimaker profiles for their own filaments?

[PaulK 14]

6 minutes ago, malencar said:

I also own an S5 and have issues with tolerance accuracy and... please forgive my ignorance for asking this, but why wouldn't the correct horizontal expansion setting be built into the Ultimaker profiles for their own filaments?

 

As far as I can see, the basic problem is that a fixed value doesn't really do the trick. Ultimately it depends on filament, settings *and* geometry, and the geometry is what really throws it all for a loop. I look forward to the day when the software can analyze the geometry and adjust automatically (to within what you know about the filament, etc)

[chuckmcgee 7]

I only wonder then, how are the printers of far less quality and price, seem to get the tolerances closer. I have had far fewer issues with both the Prusa and the CR 10.  

 

The only answer I can come up with is the software. Before I bought my Ultimakers, I had never used Cura. I still only use Cura for my Ultimakers. I use simplify 3D for the others.

 

Could this be simply be a slicing issue?

[PaulK 14]

I also use Simplify3D for my other printer. Some things are more accurate then I get with Cura+S5, but lots of things are less so, such as outer diameters. I'll also say that the profiles are very different between the two. I've driven the other printer using Cura and the outcome is fairly different (generally better quality, but slower, and I've not measured accuracy in that case)