3DPrinting

15618 readers

352 users here now

3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.

The r/functionalprint community is now located at: [email protected] or [email protected]

There are CAD communities available at: [email protected] or [email protected]

Rules

No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
Do not create links to reddit
If you see an issue please flag it
No guns
No injury gore posts

If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is ![](URL)

Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

121

Sometimes fewer walls are better (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 9 months ago by p1mrx to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think I found a counterexample to the common wisdom that more walls always create a stronger part.

The pictured S shape is 1.5mm thick, so printing with 2 walls leaves no room for infill. My testing wasn't very rigorous, but it seems that the hybrid structure of walls + rectilinear infill is 10-20% more rigid than walls alone. The infill adds strength by cris-crossing between adjacent layers.

I think it's fine to include a concentric top/bottom layer, but multiple identical layers weaken the part. I also tried 0 walls (infill only) and that was garbage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I think what that person is saying is that in your example the left part would probably be more durable because it is flexible and that the part on the right is less durable but more rigid, basically saying your result is expected and makes sense if you are wanting durability over rigidity.

I think that the part that is unclear is that OP is using durability, rigidity, and strength as they are defined by material science not in common English and they way they differ in definition makes that comment make sense. I’m not a material scientist though so I could be wrong.

I hope that is correct and makes sense hah!