A little while ago, we released a video where we observed the dynamics of different infill patterns and how they broke down under stress. The problem was, we...
Not a scientific test and not from every angle but interesting still.
The optimal structure is highly dependent on the type of loading: tension, compression, bending, shear, torsion, or combinations thereof. Thus, the results of these experiments are only valid for compression. For other load cases one either needs to do the specific experiments or run a topology optimisation, by e.g. a SIMP algorithm.
Or even in compression… if he had tested them with the weight moving along the printed z-axis.
Rectilinear, grid, lines, honeycomb and stars and any other patterns like that aren’t going to be the same.
Also, things change again with part geometry- some paterns won’t be able to set up that neat crushing pattern on something like the wing he had in an example.
Edit: if he had included solid top and bottom layers as well- which is probably more typical of printing- the attached infil would behave differently.
The optimal structure is highly dependent on the type of loading: tension, compression, bending, shear, torsion, or combinations thereof. Thus, the results of these experiments are only valid for compression. For other load cases one either needs to do the specific experiments or run a topology optimisation, by e.g. a SIMP algorithm.
Or even in compression… if he had tested them with the weight moving along the printed z-axis.
Rectilinear, grid, lines, honeycomb and stars and any other patterns like that aren’t going to be the same.
Also, things change again with part geometry- some paterns won’t be able to set up that neat crushing pattern on something like the wing he had in an example.
Edit: if he had included solid top and bottom layers as well- which is probably more typical of printing- the attached infil would behave differently.