Wear and Tear  

Re: Wear and Tear

I'm gonna say both yes and no.

Yes it will.
Not that much though.

Re: Wear and Tear

It's like if you drive your car harder, wear and tear will increase. It applies to any mechanical (and electrical) device.

Re: Wear and Tear

Full Honeycomb at 100% infill doesnt give you any extra strenght. It only increase print time. If you really have to print at 100% infill use rectilinear infill pattern only.

Re: Wear and Tear

Full Honeycomb at 100% infill doesnt give you any extra strenght. It only increase print time. If you really have to print at 100% infill use rectilinear infill pattern only.

I read somewhere that anything over 80% yields virtually no strength gains.

Re: Wear and Tear

This part is designed to take a crushing load, and I figured the more "beef" the better.

100% infill has to be better than anything less for a direct crushing load in the vertical direction, yes?

Re: Wear and Tear

This part is designed to take a crushing load, and I figured the more "beef" the better.

100% infill has to be better than anything less for a direct crushing load in the vertical direction, yes?

No. Putting more mass into the object doesn't make it more robust. Sometimes it's better to have a spring effect. You can run some simulations or do a physical/practical tests for your special requirement.

Re: Wear and Tear

Thanks!! I would never have guessed ...

Re: Wear and Tear

... Putting more mass into the object doesn't make it more robust. Sometimes it's better to have a spring effect. ...

I came across this article ...

[SMYTH 2015] Cliff Smyth, Infill and Strength, 2015, http://3dprintingforbeginners.com/infill-strength/

which suggest that, for loads along the Z-axis, Higher Infill Fill Percentage improves strength for tension or compression loads. Lower Infill Fill Percentage settings accommodate more bending prior to failure, but though they failed at lighter loads.

Re: Wear and Tear

Clint
The article you linked was a bending test and the only results cited were load and infill/shell thickness, no deflection mentioned. Is there another source for your comments?
Bob

Re: Wear and Tear

... Putting more mass into the object doesn't make it more robust. Sometimes it's better to have a spring effect. ...

I came across this article ...

[SMYTH 2015] Cliff Smyth, Infill and Strength, 2015, http://3dprintingforbeginners.com/infill-strength/

which suggest that, for loads along the Z-axis, Higher Infill Fill Percentage improves strength for tension or compression loads. Lower Infill Fill Percentage settings accommodate more bending prior to failure, but though they failed at lighter loads.

First of all, that's ABS, and ABS acts weird in tests like that. (way too bendy)

And there are some REALLY weird head-scratchers going on in this post.

0.7mm perimeter, 1.05mm perimeter, with 3mm filament.

I just can't come up with the math to make that look right. In the picture of the "broken part" the Perimeter looks like the extrusion is cylindrical. Almost ROUND.
It should have at LEAST a 50% squash.

I want to say this guy has a 0.4mm nozzle... but he says he's using 3mm filament, and a 0.4mm nozzle, is like using a 0.25mm nozzle on your mk3, as your "daily driver"... no-one does it.

There's many MANY "head scratchers" in that, that I don't think are easily answered. I would take that with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Also, It's XY, not Z.

Z would indicate the perimeters are placed vertically.

Re: Wear and Tear

The article you linked was a bending test and the only results cited were load and infill/shell thickness, no deflection mentioned. Is there another source for your comments?

In the "Lessons Learned" section of http://3dprintingforbeginners.com/infill-strength/ , Smyth suggest that ...

"If your 3D printed part will have to withstand tension or compression loading in the Z-Axis, it will probably benefit from much higher infill densities, for example."

... but I guess that is more musing than empirical evidence.

There is also this more objective measure of strength under tension loads ...

... which comes from the Anisotropy section this article ...

http://my3dmatter.com/influence-infill-layer-height-pattern/

... but that is also not spot-on, because it doesn't match what I was discussing.

This is interesting and related to the topic, but does not opine on infill density and Z-axis compression loads:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.04366.pdf

There's many MANY "head scratchers" in that, that I don't think are easily answered. I would take that with a grain of salt.

Yes ... well ... I guess I have to agree. So that is my Emily Litella moment for the day ... "never mind"!