Brick Layers - Why did no one do this before?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2024
- Brilliant is the best way to learn math & science topics! Go to brilliant.org/CNCKitchen for a 30-day free trial & the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription.
3D prints still suffer from bad layer adhesion due to their 2.5D slicing and printing approach. I investigated if a novel slicing method that interleaves the layer could improve the strength of 3D prints.
Check out our CNC Kitchen products at cnckitchen.store/ or at our global resellers www.cnckitchen.com/reseller
Brick Layer Files: www.printables.com/model/7690...
PrusaSlicer Feature Request: github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlice...
Website article www.cnckitchen.com/blog/brick...
💚 Support me 🙏
Patreon: / cnckitchen
Join as a TH-cam member!
Shop at Matterhackers(US): www.matterhackers.com/?aff=7479
Buy a Bambu Lab printer 🐼: geni.us/BambuP1S
Buy a Prusa printer: geni.us/CNCKPrusa
Shop at SliceEngineering: www.sliceengineering.com?p=rJPWEcsm_
Shop at 3DJake(EU): geni.us/zHvnB
PayPal: www.paypal.me/CNCKitchen
🎙Check out my Podcast with Thomas Sanladerer: / @themeltzone
📚 Printed Models:
3D Benchy: www.printables.com/model/3161...
Torture Toaster: www.printables.com/model/6098...
Follow me on Twitter: / cnc_kitchen
Follow me on Instagram: / cnckitchenyt
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
01:47 Brick Layers
04:20 Implementation in Simplify3D
04:55 Print Quality
05:55 Strength Tests
08:51 Summary
09:33 Sponsor
10:55 Outro
#3Dprinting #Slicing #Future
DISCLAIMER: Part of this video was sponsored by Brilliant.
FTC Disclaimer: A percentage of sales is made through Affiliate links - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
We own a print farm and run hundreds of prints in PETG that are subject to high daily stress loads. We found that larger nozzles with slight over-extrusion increasing the XY plane contact between rows along with optimal temp gave us the highest strength. There is an upper limit though, forcing us to design based on the print direction. Stefan, I’ll have to run some torture test samples at the larger nozzle diameter to see if it’s worth implementing for our prints. Thanks for the info!
Get back to us with your results please
I have a much smaller operation but my use-case is similar in scope, functional prints of PETG. I'm also curious for your results.
Is there a way we can follow you for updates? Lol
Very interesting. By “slight over extrusion” do you mean flow rate or line width?
Try z axis fuzzy skin, half layer height on all walls
let's hope this goes viral and the big slicers start implementing stuff like this
Yeah! We need to share this, definitely.
If the big slicers aren't watching this channel with every new video I question their commitment to the industry. @@ldeadpirate9432
after seeing how arachne caught on, i'd say give it 6 months
Why?
When I implemented and tested it, it came out with weaker parts.
I think a lot of it has to do with what kind of printer you use and quality of filament. On my bamboo p1s this made things worse on strength. But on the Bamboo the layer cohesion is already extremely good.
I get the concept, it’s not new or revolutionary by any stretch, it’s rather cute and has been done many times.
But on higher grade printers, this reduces layer cohesion, resulting in high stress points forming as layers don’t fully bond together. The reason this method is useful for bricks, is because those bricks are not all one solid object, they are multiple objects that are not actually connected, so you have to rely on mechanical connections like interlocking to make them strong.
Good printing is not that way though, it’s not multiple separate parts, it’s one solid part, welded together basically.
Interlocking like this does not get done in welding applications because it has no practical benefit or effect, and hurts weld integrity even. 3D printing is inherently a welding process. The material is heated up to a critical point that allows it to melt together with other material to form a single solid.
maybe they never implemented it, because it is not worth it?!
A 10% increase in strength with negligible changes in print times sounds pretty good. Seems like prints using this method may be more water tight as well. We need definitely need more testing. Great video!
I suspect the boosts would be even more significant if you tested for twisting or bending.
It sounds conceptually bankrupt since MIT published well on this and of course the issue is running a heat pump and/or thermal IR panels to get the heat bay good and hot for adhesion and mixing (where my ultrasound hot end at?) Though on the other hand you don't want the heated baseplate overperforming or motors and controls overheating.
Weird good news; looks like NIST (in Nature Communications ystrdy) found a way to use cellie compasses to do clutch NMR or at least some low key chemical measurement, though maybe outgassing things like PETG losing the glycol to atmosphere are too small.
@@Cineenvenordquist Even if true that MIT published this, it's not "conceptually bankrupt" to have the same idea.
I'm a bricklayer. Problem here is your stacking your "bricks" again, just on a different plane. Real bricks on running bond sit so each brick sits equally above two other bricks. The point of this is to divide the weight of the wall equally down, so the compressive load is much greater. Shear strength is not it's specialty. Your thumbnail image would be more correct if you rotated it 90⁰. In the thumbnail all I see is four stacked columns. But that would only be for compressive strength, which is all real bricks do.
This was my thought but I’m not a bricklayer and didn’t know how to explain it.
Yeah comparing it to bricks doesn't work anyway since here we are testing pulling forces, not compressive, 3d prints already do fine under compression.
But the thumbnail is correct if you think about layer adhesion, with normal layers, a line only adheres to it's sides and down, with this pattern I does slightly melt into and adhere to the ones diagonal below it, so the thumbnail is sorta correct in showing the contact points between each line.
I thought the gain in interweaving layers would be in lateral shear, not in the way he tested.
Even though the direction is different, you also bind the brick, and here also the fibers. That's the point. If you stacked the bricks on top of each other, the wall would fall.
Regardless of if the layers are stacked like bricks this technique increases the amount of layers each strand is touching; in theory increasing bond strength between layers.
Coming from concrete strength testing, you want the test cylinder to explode under compression. If just a part snaps off, or it cracks just by one cleavage point than the test cylinder is not homogeneous. Similar to how your parts exploded it likely means more parts of your model were experiencing stress at the same time tell the plastic itself had to give. For ridged materials optimal strength testing often ends with an explosion.
Yep That one PETG test gave me flash backs to concrete cylinder test in Material testing 101. The rebar reinforced ones would shake the building when they went off it done right!
Pardon me, but I struggle to see the similarity in material properties concerning Concrete versus Plastics. Plastics usually behave worse in strength tests when particles are introduced to the structure, whereas concrete derives its strength from the aggregates mixed in. Injection molding of PETG should preferably make the part string out when subjected to tension (as in these tests). However, since these parts aren't entirely homogenous due to the process of 3D printing rather than injecting liquid material into a mould, I'd argue there's an increase in strength due to the parts being more homogenous than traditional parts. I base this off of the parts breaking in several directions, rather than just cleanly snapping off. If they were less homogenous, they would have broken sooner
@@Arterexius Ideally in both cases neither should end up with a plasticity failure. plasticity failures are nice in that it gives you a safety factor, but fractures in multiple planes means the part took all it could handle in the current composition. Plastics can benefit from aggregates as well. Carbon fiber and glass reinforcement is valuable in plastics. This printing style is getting a lot closer to what you would expect with an injection molded failure.
Concrete, steel, plastic, wood. It's all just materials and when engineered *chef's kiss* just right that's key.
@@brianhunt6943 Ah, I must have misinterpreted what you meant. I thought your argument was that it was further from what could be expected with an injection molded part, rather than closer. Apologies for that and thanks for the explanation that aggregates work well in plastics too.
@@Arterexiusconcrete paste can have strengths upwards of 400MPa and commercial strength products and commercial products around 120MPa but aggregates are suddenly the weak point. Sheared granite aggregate looks cool though
"Simplify3D" That's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time
yep, a lot of us gave up on them about 5 years ago when they told us to pay AGAIN as our free life time updates didn't give us the new version, that and the advancement of free slicers just killed the hobbyist interest in it.
Haven't used it in 5-6 years
I use it when I want better support removal. It still works best in that application.
Still using it for non-complex prints (which are in the majority), best and easiest to use interface. I did pony up the discounted update fee gladly.
It's an older code, sir, but it checks out.
This is indeed a low-cost but effective improvement plan. Thank you for promoting this idea!
Thanks! Appreciate it.
@@CNCKitchen i think you should try slightly increasing flow and temperature, the print may be even stronger
@@wormball Wow!! Great suggestion! If you could just adjust the flow to be higher on every inner layer, it'd make a much more homogeneous piece. Print the outside layers first for a barrier to keep the over-extruded insides from oozing out, and you might have yourself a winner!
can someone translate this to dollars please, i’ll match it
Always amazes me how the most basic stuff gets neglected for so long. A child could've identified the problem, given enough information, lol.
I don't know how this video ended up on my dash given that I don't own a 3D printer, but I still want to acknowledge your craft. This was both eloquently and succinctly explained, your theory and tests show a strong grasp of the underlying physics, the graphics are clear and informative, and whenever you presented data you did so in a clear and complete manner. Content entirely aside as I don't care about the topic, I still stuck around to relax in the presence of charts with titles, honest axes, and even error bars. Thank you!
Stephen is an excellent content producer. Explains enough but not too much and refers you to other videos for further information you want to know more.
The crack features on the brick printed parts strongly implies increased vertical and horizontal bonding, leading to increased homogeneity, which is why the failures were 3d and not 2d. The 45 degree oriented bonding in the brick prints is notable in this regard.
I wouldn't be suprised if printing sample horizontally wouldn't bring any better sample resistance.
I would expect this feature in slicers in near future after this video.
Is that a good thing or not?
@@matbroomfieldI believe it’s good because it’s sharing the stress on bonds across both planes rather than just horizontal (layer adhesion)
I could be wrong though
But if that is the case, the failure plane would still be perpendicular to the force vector. The parallel cracks would suggest that there is now a different travel path for stress, along a secondary plane of anisotropy.
I bet this would be confirmed by prints made flat on the bed.
Yes but this is different than brick. A brick pattern, as he illustrates in the beginning with the blocks, is when the vertical surfaces are distributed over multiple cells above and below it. This successively doubles the surface area that is carrying any load. Instead, with this hexagonal linking, while it connects each course to more courses and of course makes it stronger, is not a brick pattern. he says there is an issue with stacking vertically, but staggering vertically maintains most of the qualities of the vertical stack and only partly links horizontally to more tracks, but arguably it already connected horizontally, and instead of just linking to the nearby track, is now linking to two nearby tracks on each side, but half as much. he should instead do what he describes in the beginning of the video and actually stagger horizontally.
I tested this method last Auguest for my Master's degree. I implemented it in PrusaSlicer with some CAD trickery. In addition to the things tested in the video I also tested a parameter that I call overlap. Overlap is the amount that the adjascent extrusion lines intersect with each other. resulting in a more solid part. My results showed that at higher overlap this new approach had no advantage over traditional printing (where higher overlap can be achieved my simply extruding more). The max interlayer strength I acheived was ~35-36Mpa in PLA for both printing methods, but the interlocking layers were printed slower because of double the amount of layer changes.
Share your results and explain why Stephan measured an increase of 10 to 14%. If you trade speed for strength this is a good thing to know. If the increase in strength is not worth the effort it is also a useful outcome.
@@chipcode5538 In this video neither method (interlock and normal) have been pushed to the limit in terms of (over)extrusion. My objectives were a bit different in that I only wanted to test the case where both have maximum extrusion. The nice thing is that I realised both can achieve essentially solid parts, but these solid parts do not have uniform properties as I hoped probably due to the thermal history.
Another difference I forgot to mention was that I used ASTM 638 samples which are a different geometry and are solid instead of hollow. However I doubt this would make a huge difference.
Ultimately I moved on to other projects. But I wish someone with the equipment could test this idea with more other parameters including material, geometry and other things. Maybe some other materials that are natually good at layer adhesion can benefit from completely solid parts.
Another thing I would like to mention is that if you recall the transparent part video, the strength gains were better than this iirc, which kinda is in line with what I found. Overall extruding like crazy will give you higher strength IMO.
I hope your thesis didn’t result in a company patenting anything - otherwise we will just see it in our lives in three decades 😂
one idea i had was to mount the extruder motor to the side of the printer and have a carbon fiber hexagonal drive shaft with a Teflon gear that can slid along it making the hot end super light but still direct drive
@@GeekDetourdepending where it was published it's probably already been sold
I can't believe I haven't seen this tried before. It feels extremely obvious in hindsight, especially after seeing how fdm prints tend to split.
Thanks for the great work as always, Stefan!
Hi Stefan, what an amazing idea and execution! One add-on I've come up with... MORE FLOW.
Let me explain. AFAIK most printers (extruders) are set up to feed slightly less than 100% material. Like 98 to 99%, and that is BEFORE any manual flow rate adjustment you apply. That's because you need to compensate for the inevitable air gaps between the round edges of the "bricks".
But with this staggered layering, there's going to be less gap, so you should be able to feed more and yet maintain the dimensional accuracy. And if you really want to take it to the limit, you could keep the reserved flow for the outermost perimeter and push more into all the other perimeters in between.
This can make the print much stronger I believe, and I really hope you have time to try it!
And also i think it is worth to slightly increase the temperature cos the hot sausage is contacting more cold plastic, and it has to slightly melt all of this.
@@wormball Great idea, totally makes sense!
This is amazing!!! This is the exact reason I watch this channel. Not only to learn how to 3d print but to better the process of 3d printing. I'm not an engineer but was always fascinated by how things were made and how to make something better. This is exactly what this channel offers. Thanks you Stefan!!!
I actually submitted this as an idea for Bambu Studio/Orca Slicer almost a year ago. It is nice to see it in action. My use case was to make thin walled parts, such as a simple bin/cup stronger by using the offset layers. Imagine a part with a wall three lines thick. Now offset the middle line in the wall, as you have demonstrated. There is no longer a single layer line cutting through the wall. line
Indeed, it might not be relevantly stronger in tension, but shearing should be much better.
Problem is, with slopes, it doesn't work anymore.
@@supermerill What do you mean? How does it not work anymore?
@@leocurious9919 The next "low" layer will be partially on top of the previous "high" layer. The mushyness of the plastic still gives you some room to work but it'll probably limit slopes a bit.
Also, couldn't you make the inner lines in walls have higher extrusion so they fill in the space more? You could print the outer lines first then with higher extrusion the inner ones.
I've only ever resin printed and I'm STUNNED!!! that you are the first guy thinking of that in 2024 no less... That's crazy! Gut gemacht!
PURE GENIUS! Stefan, you just figured out the best Draft settings ever! This could be the best 0.32 layer heigh way of printing fast and strong parts. 3D Printing will be better because of this video. Way to go man!
This was my conclusion after reading the post about over extruded solid parts being equally strong with and without stagger or overlap.
This is faster and stronger, for rapid prototyping only.
It's better, but it's not nearly the best. The best would be to print with the fibers aligning with the flow of tension and compression and leave no hole in the center of the cross section of the model as seen in the demo. Instead of a mere 10% improvement, there could be a 20x improvement.
Increasing extrusion temp and enclosing the printer might create a more bonded structure using this pattern. Really great work!
I agree, it would probably make it sensible to build a heated chamber for low melting temp polymers like PLA and PETG
Alternately, since the middle perimeter is supported on two sides, you could try disabling part cooling for that perimeter. That should give it way more time to bond to the other two perimeters, and maybe even the next two put down on top.
Maybe also a higher print temp so it’s more likely to still be at a “receptive” temp when the adjacent line is laid down.
@@mariusbendiksen163 interesting, I usually print my PLA at 225 for that purpose. People point out that I loose the luster of the PLA at that temperature. But I print functional parts. Not display pieces. I need it strong, not pretty.
@@oasntet That's a neat idea, and I'll bet he could test it in Simpify3D.
Great idea. If combined with the techniques you described in your video about 3D printing clear "glass" (slower, hotter), I think you'll basically fill the voids between lines and the part would be very strong.
I was suprised to see any voids in the corners. If I don't get my first layer a near perfect rectangular cross section I have adhesion problems with PETG
@@TheRealPlato What kind of build plate are you using? I've heard so much PETG slander about adhesion. Some people say it adheres so well to bare glass that it can chip the build plate on removal... Other say it never adheres at all. I really don't get it, as I've had only a few adhesion issues printing PETG. And that's only on very long prints. I tend to just used glue stick or Magigoo's PC adhesion promoter on every print these days just so I can forget about the whole problem.
Hands down the best 3D printing channel on TH-cam. Thanks for helping to move this industry into the future Stefan!
Really interesting analysis! I've been 3D printing for several months now and I'm learning new things everyday. I had thought about how layers are stacked on top of each other and have broken a few prints by mistake, usually due to poor layer adhesion. This is a really interesting approach - thank you for sharing!
Dear Stefan, maybe you could host a competition? You already have equipment for testing and this way people would be encouraged to innovate unique slicing methods and verify them. Just an idea.
This would be super cool. Have a standard model, material, and print temperature. Then test the tensile strength to weight ratio using different gcodes people submit, along with their slicer settings and post processing scripts.
I'd love to watch something like that. Sometimes people have revolutionary ideas and don't even realize it, or don't share them thinking that someone else probably beat them to it.
I vote for this idea.
He did something like this a couple years back except for designing a hook to submit to a competition held by some plastic manufacturer.
This is brilliant. Commenting to bump it up.
Impressive results! I wonder if increasing the flow rate for the middle, higher, wall layer could fill the triangular gaps between bricks more completely, like filling a trough
This is something really worth looking at!
I was wondering the same thing.
Same
Like mortar to the bricks.
Maybe even a different, low viscosity filament in between.
You are a hero for testing this. I have been wanting to see this for years!
If this gets implemented into slicers, it's something I would definitely use on occasion. Sometimes part strength is more important than printing speed.
Fascinating. This is a common source of strength at the molecular level too! Metal becomes more brittle and less likely to slip when the atoms form a tight lattice like this.
One thing I couldn't help but notice was that the contact patches for the brick slicing seemed smaller, even though there was a larger number of them. I can't help but wonder if this might have reduced the potential strength gain and if it's possible to increase the extrusion multiplier slightly to increase the squish of each layer and try and increase the contact patch size
You identified the main problem with this test: his layers were too high to start with. With low layers they squish into rectangles (in cross section) and as you get to high layers they look like circles. Layer bonding area drops towards zero and tensile strength falls off a cliff. In my experience, nozzle diameter to layer height ratio needs to be 2 or greater. I very much like this idea but I wish he’d done this test with a more conventional layer height (say 0.2mm).
That extrustion multiplier makes sense too since you are imparting more "void" space since printing lines naturally tend to round out. I wonder how much a small amount of extrusion multiplication would add to final strength
In PrusaSlicer’s default settings, it uses a 0.45 extrusion width on a 0.4mm nozzle. This plus a layer height of 0.2mm or lower creates perimeters that don’t have the giant gaps.
@@Tyler-wg5xh This plus extruding at the high end of the material’s temperature range so that it really squishes itself into the voids might get even closer to near perfect contact!
@@joshcarter-com right but we could increase that for taller layers to make faster prints that take better advantage of this too right?
VIELEN DANK Stefan für diese Idee und viele weitere deiner Ideen!!! DU bringst das 3D Drucken auf höhere Level! Mach weiter so, wir sind dir sehr dankbar!!! ❤
Finally! I was waiting for this for ages. Thank you Stefan!
This channel consistently produces some of the best 3d printing content on the whole platform. Not just in form but in function as well, advancing the community farther and farther with ever video!
It would be super interesting to see how the brick method affects shear and bending strength. A lot of as printed lugs and bosses have that failure mode and I think the brick method could provide a big improvement there.
Came here to say the same. I missed some shear loading testing
Man you’re constantly crushing it with interesting and in depth topics.
The hexagon truly is the bestagon...
10% -14% suggests more adhesion than I initially thought. Neat. Great work as usual.
Neat
I remember trying something like this in 2017 by taking a page out of my composites experience with alternating patterns and rotating layers. It was a pain in the butt getting the printer to run them concurrently without inducing a concentrated repetition zone where the initiation point wasn't a blob in a corner. Gyroid infill works in about the same way and doesn't require manual code adjustment, but it would be worth trying again with modern advances of the last few years on the entire layer slice.
You're definitely on to something here Stephan. Keep up the research. Awesome work 👏👏👏
Great video! I think a lot of people thought about this because it makes so much sense, but you actually did it. I hope in future this becomes a standard setting for slicers.
To get the most out of this, I think it would be a good idea to slightly increase the pressure so the gaps get filled better, creating basically a hexagonal pattern in the section.
Great Idea! You should also try shifting extruder lines horizontally just like bricklayers do. Neat S3D trick!
I'm not an engineer, but the science behind this is fascinating! The potential for improving 3D printing processes is incredible. Great work, Stefan!
you're a bot, pushing crypto scams. everyone should report
superb idea with the usual professional approach, thank you Steffan.
Awesome stuff man. Came back to this because my professor for principles of AM mentioned this exact concept. Surprised it doesn't have more support yet.
I'd be very interested in testing this approach towards air/water tight prints. Those interlocking lines should also help with reducing gaps between extrusion lines.
5:33 I would love to see an impact test along the layer lines like this as well. I fee like that's where the biggest improvement might be with this method. Also, what if you could over-extrude all the inner layers of the wall to fill in those gaps? Could lead to even stronger layer adhesion and maybe more water resistant parts.
Amazing. We need to explore this more as it can have a dramatic impact on the industry. Well done!
And also potentially relevant to metal 3D printing, such as the 3D printing of rockets which needs strength more assuredly.
I'm actively doing my CS senior research about this. I finish my preliminary bibliography of existing research last week, and then just saw this.
This is one of the many reasons I love this channel. Not just how and why to 3d print, but amazing explanation of what 3d printing can become.
The essence of this channel for me!
All these incremental improvements and optimizations, one of these days Stephan is going to hit upon a critical advantage that can't be ignored for its improvements.
Вude, it's because of people like you our civilization is moving forward. Thanks especially for showing the visual graphs!
This is mind blowing! Never thought about this approach before. This will definitely increase part strength as the plastic not only bond with previous layers but also with adjunction walls
Super interesting! definitely needs to be investigated further and hopefully get something like this implemented natively in a slicer
The use of dimensional adjustments in simplify was pretty smart! I think most people don't realize how powerful the process settings in Simplify can be. I would have never thought to use them this way. Nice video 👍🏼
True, I used Simplify 5 years ago to achieve the adaptive layer quality almost without time loss (outer perimeter is 0.05mm, inner and all other model parts - 0.3mm) using the same technique with multiple printing processes. Even 5 years later there are no slicers which can offer me this incredible functionality.
Fantastic. Lacking the time to test this idea myself I have been waiting for someone else to do it.
I was just thinking about this approach a few weeks ago, thanks so much for doing this! I'd love to see a comparison across a range of temperatures, maybe with & without being annealed.
The secondary cracking looks to me like you are approaching isotropy. This is definitely a positive development. I’m excited to see what can be done with ideas like this. Varying deposition width and thickness to direct forces to more advantageous areas.
Would it be possible to print a part with small-diameter z-channels, then, when the print head gets to the top of the part, instruct the nozzle to pause over each channel and inject material down into it? I’m curious if you could increase tensile strength by adding z-oriented structural members in this way.
This! I just left a comment about this haha.
Dang little injection molding channels would be incredible!
Good idea. Bah, in reality might be difficult to achieve. To inject some molten plastic for some length in such a channel you must create a pressure all along already filled region of this channel. Thus, you need to seal somehow the channel entrance and a nozzle. Nozzle is hot. It will melt the walls and plastic will go all around the nozzle but not in the channel.
However, maybe it depends on the channel length, and having such a stitches between 3-10 top layers is achievable.
@@bogdan1543 consider the possible use of a second material which has a lower melt temperature. It likely wouldn’t bond as well to the surrounding “jacket” but it might offer additional shear resistance none-the-less.
This just popped in my TH-cam so I'm a bit late... I've tried this by creating a part with z-axis holes and modifying gcode to do the 'extrusion'.
1) Superheated nozzle (260 degrees for PLA instead of 230)
2) Pressed nozzle tight onto the hole (half a layer into the surface)
3) Quick extrusion with some tuning to get timing right (hot PLA was dripping from the nozzle)
Managed to extrude about 10 layers deep, which is promising, but I thought same as @robblincoln2152: One should use a second nozzle with lower melting point & viscosity material. Even something like cyanoacrylate if one could prevent it blocking the nozzle.
A true innovation. I also appreciate how extensive your testing is.
Great idea. I’m always very impressed how smart you are.
So awesome! Please bring us this to all slicer makers!!
i feel like increasing extrusion rate in the central layer(s) may fill in the cracks way more and increase homogeneity while maintaining external layer accuracy
Like this idea. 7:56 - certainly introduces other unwanted results but to learn about this we need more testing. PETg should never explode like this.
It’s just so difficult to quantify FDM part strength because there are soooo many variables - and these variables become clear from one part to the next.
When I want strength - I print my parts one at a time, rather then layer by layer. Your brittle parts were probably the ones that cooled the most between layers. The heat of your previous layer is really important for strength.
Printing one at a time not only allows for reduction in complexity- but also allows you to think more critically about the part you are printing - especially in achieving strength.
Printing one at a time also reduces the chance of inconsistency in extrusion.
I think we need to start breaking down the variables one by one and addressing them. An ideal job for machine learning. But to start with it we figured out…
1. Optimal previous layer temp vs nozzle temp.
2. Extrusion multiplier vs cooling
Obviously the above points interact with one another. But if we start breaking it down we will learn. Then we can decide what technology should be added to make it work together.
Just to add - keep going! You can find solutions if u keep going! Ur very good - keep going
They have alot of videos on similar tests. The point here wasn't maximum strength, it was to show the difference with this singular change. That being said, I would love to see what this change does when trying to achieve maximum strength of a specific part. Enclosures, reduced fan speed, hotter temps, slower print speed.
@@radioactivesdesigns3554 - yes I agree. I have followed for a good while. But the over-arching goal is to increase strength of FDM parts - which is a great goal because it’s tricky.
I really liked the clear printing results. I learned from that myself - helped me print stronger parts.
I feel like the clear printing parameter would be a really good place to start on achieving the holy grail of layer bonding. I would love to see more deep diving into this.
PETG is actually known for flash crystallisation under stress, which causes it to fracture and explode in all directions, forming sharp edges. I have no clue what causes it, it's a weird material. It's also quite capable of producing almost isotropic prints with no clear weak plane even under normal printing algorithm, with just the outer perimeter bead corners and model geometry causing stress risers.
@@SianaGearz - do you mean 3D printed PETg? - PETg sheet / stock is pretty consistent and ductile.
But I have seen all kinds of weird results with PETg printed - sometimes really ductile - sometimes really brittle.
All of my petg parts I've made that underwent prolonged cyclic loads exploded just like that, multiple mounts and adapters I made to attach stuff to my motorcycle (nothing safety critical!) Eventually failed spontaneously and catastrophically just like that. Different filaments and geometries, never failed along a layer line either since I printed to not have significant loads in those directions.
Reprinted with CF nylon and they've lastest more than 2 times as long without a single sign of wear so far.
What an incredibly inticing intro! Great explanation with a promising hook
Very interesting indeed. Well done for researching different ideas
I've tried to do something this before but never got it to work properly. My attempts never got past the first 10-20 layers when the print was irrecoverable. I'm happy to see you actually did it!!
Way to keep come up with interesting questions to examine and test! I had never considered something like this.
Great idea, and like always good video. I'm relatively fresh to 3d printing world about a year on ender 3. But always learn something new from you
This is definitely interesting! I'd love to see more testing done on this method!
A potentially even better solution could be a system of channel and fill. but require 5 layer at least, so it creates something like this:
nomeclature:
layer x : sequence of the height of the extruded plastic
layer 1: 10111
layer 2: 10101
layer 3: 13001
layer 4: 10031
layer 5: 10301
goto layer 3
this way you can create more planar decoupling, but it is a lot harder to implement. the other thing here is that the channels where the multi line is filled could suffer thermal failure an suffer some bucking (or eventually, re melting and welding better the vertical interlayers).
Also, this solution only works in close-to-vertical walls. and would reduce printing time as some of the load (machine limiting factor? idk) would move from the kinematics to the extruding system.
I think you just invented a whole new and important step in 3d printing's history. Incredible work Stefan!
I hope you start a revolution! This also makes me think if there was a way to iron the printed filament behind the nozzle to squish it down and into the cracks that could help. Think of a tiny bricklayer running a trowel over plastic after the nozzle probably impractical, I mean how do you make his tiny little work shorts and shirt? Maybe the nozzle it’s self or an add on shape that trails it.
Excellent work my friend! This is so cool!
Just had a mighty row with a friend about this very subject. How to make sure that the circular filament fills out the square “channels” in which a slicer “thinks”. He said I was too lazy to make a better = thicker design. I said there is something fundamentally wrong if slicers can not adopt to this problem. Until then 3D printed parts will be very much weaker the those made with conventional molding technology. You’ve taken an important step in the right direction with this very experiment. Well done!
the solution would actually be quite simple. Print outer walls first, then for inner walls increase flow so it fills out the empty space neatly squished between the outer walls.
@@Janovich In theory? Yes. In practice?
@@marcbrasse747 In practice, I think it'd tend to warp if that's the only change you made.
@@S_Roach Your remark is a bit cryptic. Please explain what you mean in more detail. 🙂
@@marcbrasse747 I suspect if you created a shell, then filled that with hot filament, which, please remember, is a non-Newtonian fluid, in that it readily expands after it leaves the nozzle, to its "natural" diameter, that you'd end up with a shell that was being pushed on, constantly, by the filler. I think this would likely result in a print that tended to change its shape over time. To warp like green wood does.
It would probably be more obvious in thinner-walled prints.
But, that's only my speculation.
Interesting, thanks for the video. I just don't understand why you test the "pure" layer-adhesion and not a shear load. The benefits should be much better there.
Your content is so good dude
Totally awesome project and proof of concept! The Prusa Slicer dev team should take notes.
This idea needs to be tested with z “wobble” this would drastically increase the surface area and should result in stronger layers.
Ps a series on maximizing layer strength would be awesome.
My mind immediately goes to sinusoidal z-oscillation, but I can imagine there are at least as many variations to try as exist in infill patterns.
Yeah that would be a good idea too!
Check out additive manufacturing of non-planar layers with variable layer height (Pelzer, hopmann 2001), they attempted something very close to this with fairly promising results.
I really want a longer and more detailed video on this. I'm eagerly awaiting
Bravo for adding error bars on your strength test results!
One issue you may also be running into is the gaps,bricks have mortar to fill gaps.
Let's also consider that bricks are meant to be used against a COMPRESSIVE force, not tension, or shear forces.
Perhaps test each method for other types of failure as well, checking resistance to shearing, and to being malformed by crushing (basically both are accomplished with a press and set of jigs to apply forces compressive and laterally into a media across it's layer boundaries both perpendicular and parallel to the layers.)
I know that tensile, and tension are important, but by using a mixture of layering methods for parts in different areas, you could accomplish some amazing results I'm sure.
Also consider crossing layers perpendicular to one another for better resistance to layer shearing In a compressive plane of force, something like a stopper bushing for a sliding rod or spring assembly.
Bro the concept is so brilliant. I'm only 23 seconds into the video but I'm so excited to see how it works out
In the US, we typically call the proper way of laying overlapping bricks a _running bond._
Interesting stuff. You do a great job of examining tweaks and unconventional print and post print processes that I love.
I would have been interested to see some experiments examining failure when force is applied perpendicular to the stacking of the print layers. Like a shear test or a 'torque test' (is this the right term?) with one side of a long piece clamped and supported and the other hanging with weights hung or force applied.
Love what you do.👍
Great job, after this video I definitely expect this to be introduced in prusa
oh hey i suggested this idea a while ago on the, video where you use a 0.4mm nozzle to print 0.8 lines, i didn't comment it on that video but a later one cus i knew that that video was old and my comment would not have been seen.
found my old comment on, Heated Chambers: Game-Changer for 3D Prints video
How much time did it add to the print?
Practically none.
Thanks for trying this out.
I think if you simply rig up a cross-sectional equivalent of loops of the filament to be equivalent to the two layering samples you'll find you're dealing with running into the actual tensile strength of the plastic itself after having gone through the printing process.
babe wake up, better z layer adesion is here
I would love to see how these parts perform when subjected to stress in other directions. Really interesting idea, and fantastic execution!
Zigzag/conical failure is very similar to ductile material failure. iIt is amazing that you made a 3d print act like a ductile material rather than britile. For the longtitudal crack, I have a theory: the printed layers are brick-layerd only vertically, but not planarly, making it easier for the crack to move horizontaly over the layers. The more circular your line will be (i guess like in "fine" printing modes), the more brick-layerd the vertical columns will be.
Very nice idea!
Multiple persons (including you) already talked about it, but, yeah, I think you are the first to test and measure it.
Maybe add the video to the prusa slicer ticket?
Thank you! That is exactly my problems during 3D printing...
Great & interesting work, thank you!
I'm very late to this comment section, but hopefully you read this and give some thought. Something similar to this, that I have been thinking about for a long time is printing the even and odd perimeters at different extrusion rates. So, as an example, let's consider a five perimeter print. The outermost perimeter, let's call it perimeter 1, then perimeter 3 and subsequently perimeter 5 would be printed first. After perimeters 1, 3 and 5 are finished, perimeter 2 and 4 are printed at a higher extrusion rate, lets say 115%, calculated to fill in the star shaped gaps between layers 1, 3 and 5. Speed might also be reduced to allow the melted filament to fill said gaps. Maybe this is something that already exists en slicers, but have just never seen it. Hopefully you can give this a try, Cheers!
Of anyone else you definitely make the most interesting videos pertaining to FDM printing. 👍🏻
Thank you for sharing your experiments with us. This helps to bring FDM printing forward.
What I often do is printing the walls in 0.2mm hight and the infill in 0.3mm. This might not only save print time, it also improves the strength of the part a bit.
You could try to increase the extrution a bit for the inner walls and change the extrution with from 0.4 to 0.6 from layer to layer to fill the gaps a bit better.
If some of the inner layers' height was intermittently doubled, such that the cross-section of some lines is lenticular in shape, it may produce more strength along the diagonal, reducing the catastrophic failure incidents. An example might be at 7:53, the exact frame where it breaks. It breaks nearly symmetrically along the diagonal in the middle, and the two pieces fly away in opposite directions. However, the fractures occurred at nearly the same spots mirrored vertically along the item, which happened to be diagonally along a fault line. The breaks occurred at nearly the same angle which appears proportional to the slope of a slanted failure. My thinking is that failures like that might be caused by the near homogeneity in the size of the material, just like how concrete with near homogenous aggregates can tend to be weaker due to the lack of anisotropic strength due to the accumulation of variances of the aggregates, similar to the fundamental problem of laying your bricks on top of each other. Could be wrong though, but this is just an idea.
Awesome work. I think that the difference may be greater for shear stresses rather than the simple tension this set up tests for.
Innovation always makes me happy to see.
How could someone patent simply offsetting layers?
Very nice and well produced video with in depth details and wonderful spreading of knowledge! Thanks for sharing
There are two techniques I told a friend of mine to implement in his 3D printing mechines they manufacturing. One is nozzel rail turning hexagonal printing, the other is poly powder trailing.
This was literally on my mind out of the blue on Friday, I was thinking of alternating layer width and line counts so they would print into the valleys instead of peaks of the previous layer
ie:
layer 1 @ 100% width 4 outlines
layer 2 @ 133-145% width 3 outlines
etc
One of the things I thought of during this is a different fundamental problem with FDM, which you're going to deal with more using this technique: the adhesion between layers is temperature dependent. If the filament is laid across a more fluid surface, the layers will bond better - and your images show that bonding is minimal.
Not dealing with a reservoir or enclosed area is one of the advantages to FDM, but if you're working toward stronger bonds a warmer environment (not enough to cause sag, but enough to maintain a fluid interface between layers during the printing process) seems like something to explore.