3D Honeycomb Infill

[dorsai3d]

If you look at your gif, the only spot you'll have meaningful layer adhesion is where those corners lay on top of one another, and the rest will barely adhere since it's only printed every other layer and offset from the previous line. Hence why in the link above, 3D honeycomb is nearly the weakest of all tested in both orientations, and grid infill (both rectilinear angles on each layer) is stronger than any that are listed in that post.

[Count_Carstein]

+100

[CompoundCarl]

dorsai3d explained it quite well. The 3D honeycomb pattern is quite weak compared to everything else, so I for one would rather have the developers spend their time on something else. It's actually quite easy to calculate why the pattern is going to be weak if you took a mechanics of materials class. You are FAR better off using grid or triangle if you want maximum strength. I have printed dozens of test specimens now that also confirm this. So this pattern is NOT stronger, in fact it is much weaker than the other patterns.

The grid and triangle patterns were actually already stronger for sideways loading, but if you want even more strength, try adding a few diaphragm layers. That will create solid layers every 20 or so layers which also adds even more strength.

[citrik]

If you look at your gif, the only spot you'll have meaningful layer adhesion is where those corners lay on top of one another, and the rest will barely adhere since it's only printed every other layer and offset from the previous line. Hence why in the link above, 3D honeycomb is nearly the weakest of all tested in both orientations, and grid infill (both rectilinear angles on each layer) is stronger than any that are listed in that post.

dorsai3d explained it quite well. The 3D honeycomb pattern is quite weak compared to everything else, so I for one would rather have the developers spend their time on something else. It's actually quite easy to calculate why the pattern is going to be weak if you took a mechanics of materials class. You are FAR better off using grid or triangle if you want maximum strength. I have printed dozens of test specimens now that also confirm this. So this pattern is NOT stronger, in fact it is much weaker than the other patterns.

The grid and triangle patterns were actually already stronger for sideways loading, but if you want even more strength, try adding a few diaphragm layers. That will create solid layers every 20 or so layers which also adds even more strength.

Thank you both for the conversation...

I'm not an engineer, more of a mad scientist in the garage type, so either of you may have a better understanding of materials science than I do. That said, It sounds like you are under extruding your infill, if the layers are not adhering. When I use that infill pattern with Slic3r the layers are completely solid, each cell could hold liquid. The overlaps/intersections can squish out a touch since it is heavily extruding but appearances are not really important on the infill. Parts I've made with this infill are nearly as strong (unidirectionally) as solid parts and considerably lighter & faster to print.

The thing I like about this pattern (compared to doing a solid layer every 20 layers or so) is that the lines migrate at a rate such that you never have bridging issues. With printing a layer every 20 or so it seems like that could easily end up with a bunch of stringy cells from failed bridging, depending on the material and the size of the infill grid. I guess you could use the Process List to make the infill every 20 layers and find a cell size that didn't have bridging issues but that's quite a bit more work than the Tessellated Truncated Octagon pattern. It works quite well for me, and it's the main feature that's keeping me from moving from Slic3r to Simplify3d full-time.

[dorsai3d]

The point is that it doesn't matter much what it looks like, the testing shows that it's not faster or stronger (in either direction), so it's not really worth anything.

http://my3dmatter.com/influence-infill- ... t-pattern/ This link has some very useful data. It doesn't include data on 3D infill patterns, but the engineerdog link even concluded that it's not better than the others.

[ReneeCelDesigns]

+1

This is one of my biggest issues with S3D. And that 3D honey comb looks insane, you could even use this for art pieces etc.

I would love to see loads of new and wacky infill patters... some Structural ones and some mad ones!

Reneeceldesigns

[AreDigg]

I would love to see loads of new and wacky infill patters... some Structural ones and some mad ones!

While I also love crazy infill patterns, they will not be visible in all practical cases. And I believe that the purpose of the software (S3D) is to make infill practical, and leave the artistic side up to the design software. On a FDM printer the strongest patterns are triangular for allround, and grid for top/bottom. The weakness with 3d honeycomb will be in the layers. Because they are the weakest link so the structure will collapse when energy is enough, But when you print 90º on top of the layer below, the bonding strength is at maximum and hence the strongest structure. I typically print triangular infill but skewed about 22º, so that for most objects a right-on hit will disperse the energy throughout the model.

[cdl1701]

I would love to see loads of new and wacky infill patters... some Structural ones and some mad ones!

While I also love crazy infill patterns, they will not be visible in all practical cases. And I believe that the purpose of the software (S3D) is to make infill practical, and leave the artistic side up to the design software. On a FDM printer the strongest patterns are triangular for allround, and grid for top/bottom. The weakness with 3d honeycomb will be in the layers. Because they are the weakest link so the structure will collapse when energy is enough, But when you print 90º on top of the layer below, the bonding strength is at maximum and hence the strongest structure. I typically print triangular infill but skewed about 22º, so that for most objects a right-on hit will disperse the energy throughout the model.

+1 to more infill patterns. I like to print things with 0 perimeters or 0 top and bottom to get interesting effects.

[Kldz]

that would be a great feature

[Hugo.ID]

Pretty disappointed with simplfy3d 4.0

Was definitely expecting this feature to be in there. And to everyone saying it doesn't add structural strength, then that is due to implementation or execution, not in theory. In theory 3d infill is vastly superior and has significant advantages, also offering incredibly different properties.

E.g., if your desire is to make something that floats with no outer perimters/layers a 2d pattern is sunk, whereas 3d infill will always maintain cells that are completely sealed, and will float.
2d infill is always weak in the direction it isn't designed for, whereas 3d infill seeks to mititigate that weakness.
2d infill with rubber will result in a rubber product just has hard as PLA or PET vertically, whereas a 3d infill will allow for the TPU/TPE to flex in every direction. This is absolutely essential if your end result is any kind of usable gasket.



Every direction, every layer.
Strongest prints yet with this infill pattern.