Can you suggest the best type of infill? and why exactly that one?
I am updating results periodicaly:
0 Octagram Spiral
0 Archimedean Chords
1 + Hilbert Curve
2 ++ Rectilinear
3 +++ Line
1 + Concentric
7 +++++++ Honeycomb
2 ++ Other
Right tool for the right job.
Hexagons… Because of bees (and close to isotropic stiffness)
The best fill depends upon the geometry of the part that is being printed. In my experience, the fill percentage is more important than the fill geometry – strong structural parts need a denser fill, while large decorative parts will benefit more from a sparser fill.
In general, like @Daniel_Canelhas , I like hex fill… It may not be the best fit for every shape but it seems to offer good, generic strength for a large variety of shapes.
If I want something more solid, I just print it solid…
OTOH, hex fill kills acceleration… Straight lines can be done much faster - if you’re filling just because you need to, they’re worth looking at.
I use hex infill, because theoretically it gives the best unidirectional strength per material used. However, line infill has a more material- and time-efficient implementation to start with, so it’s also a popular infill type.
Concentric is good for top/bottom surfaces, but not so useful for actual infill.
As for the other methods: i don’t think anybody uses them, since they’re neither fast nor useful.
Infill geometry should be more than 1/20 of wall thickness to prevent localized buckling. Probably more like 1/10.
I saw a photo of a printed cat with cat shaped infill. That gets my vote.
I use Cura and it has a fill a lot like the one on the top row, fifth from the left, but the angle of the lines is reversed.
Basically it lays out a complete new perimeter using the edges of the infill. Seems to produce fairly strong parts (as the infill is pretty well bonded to the outside layer), while still being fast.
That said, Hex does look nice, and “feels” right for high strength. It’s just very slow to print with all the angle changes.
By all means experiment. I did and found for me honeycome for interior infill and rectilinear for tops and bottoms gave me the least amount of hassles overall.
I use honeycomb for the same reasons @Thomas_Sanladerer mentioned and concentric for a nicer appearance though I don’t always like how the latter is sliced with odd shapes.
While honeycomb are visually pleasing and theoretically better (?) in my unscientific testing I have not seen any real difference so I just do good old lines (it’s slightly faster and shake the printer less).
Fwiw, I seem to get less curling with honeycomb…
I’ve used honeycomb to load in compression, and for figurines I typically use rectilinear for most things. Around 10-25% depending on model.
I played with honeycomb for a while, but found it just simply created a lot of vibrational stress on the machine, and also increased print times a bit due to acceleration/jerk. I use the 5th from the left. It alternates pattern direction, so it actually ends up looking more like a cross hatch, and it’s time efficient and doesn’t cause the machine to vibrate wildly.
The infill from Cura is missing in your picture…
It’s squares with long lines, so it prints quick (no jerk/acceleration issues) while being quite strong.
As @Jason_Gullickson mentioned, hex gives strain relief for shrinkage during cooling. I’ve had less issues with large parts curling off the bed when using hex, but as @ThantiK said, it makes the printer vibrate at high speeds which sometimes cause the hotend to impact my part
Place them a number and I will tell you…
@Gerardo_Paz From left to right - 1 to 7
I would suggest a honey pattern, because it covers three different angles.