<p>I'm relatively new to 3d printing, and wanted to get a few things understood.
Firstly, I am unclear on how Hexagonal infill is stronger than, say, diamond pattern. </p>

<p>Can anyone explain how the different shape causes the structure to be stronger? I saw a few places that hex is stronger; usually, more vertices means 'weaker' shape (i.e. a triangle is stronger than a square), so how does that work with hex vs diamond?</p>

<p>Also, in small objects, where the printer makes only a single dot as the infill (a dot instead of a line in larger objects), does the infill strengthen the object at all?</p>

<p>EDIT: I am trying to understand the effect of the infill pattern on the <em>strength</em> of the print, regardless of print time.</p>

[{'answer_id': 3636, 'author': 'Davo', 'author_id': 4922, 'author_profile': 'https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4922', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>Correction: I believe I found what you are looking for:</p>\n\n<p><a href="https://engineerdog.com/2015/09/02/mechanical-testing-3d-printed-parts-results-and-recommendations/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Report from EngineerDog.com</a></p>\n\n<p>The author concludes that rectilinear infill with a zero degree offset is the strongest. However, I have not seen consensus for or against a certain pattern being strongest. I recommend more investigation .</p>\n\n<p>My original answer:</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>I don\'t know that one pattern is significantly stronger than another,\n  provided they each bond well with other infill deposits as well as the\n  perimeters.</p>\n  \n  <p>There are studies around. In 3D printing, strength is rarely the only\n  consideration; one must optimize for strength <em>where needed</em> versus\n  time to print.</p>\n  \n  <p>See\n  <a href="https://3dprinting.com/tips-tricks/how-to-choose-an-infill-for-your-3d-prints/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a>\n  as an example of a report which supports the hexagonal or honeycomb\n  pattern as the optimal balance between strength and print time. <a href="http://my3dmatter.com/influence-infill-layer-height-pattern/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This\n  one</a> is\n  more detailed, but only compares linear infill patterns of varying\n  layer thickness and density. There are many such articles, some more\n  scientifically conducted than others, available with a simple search.</p>\n</blockquote>\n'}, {'answer_id': 3638, 'author': 'TextGeek', 'author_id': 40, 'author_profile': 'https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/40', 'pm_score': 4, 'selected': True, 'text': '<p>Hex grids are used for different reasons than triangular grids (such as you often see on bridges and roof systems). Triangles are especially good at being <em>rigid</em>, while hex grids are very material-efficient for a given strength. The second reason ($) is typically more important for 3D printing.</p>\n\n<p>Triangles do have fewer vertices than squares, but it\'s not always true that "fewer vertices" means stronger. Vertices are one kind of weak point. But in a triangle, vertex "angle-holding" failures simply don\'t matter. You can fasten 3 bars together with hinges or other joints that have little resistance to changing angle, and the triangle is still rigid.</p>\n\n<p>In contrast, rectangular grids can (and do -- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t9MpNTSbYg" rel="noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t9MpNTSbYg</a>) completely collapse if their vertices aren\'t rigid enough. That combines badly with the fact that vertices concentrate forces, so have to be much stronger than sides in comparable settings.</p>\n\n<p>A triangle cannot change without changing multiple things -- at least 2 angles and a side, or all three sides. Intuitively, the sides and vertices of a triangle work together for strength. This advantage of triangles doesn\'t transfer to hexagons, but hexagons have two other advantages: First, if you want to fill a space with a repeating shape, hexagons use less material than other shapes. And second, hexagons keep all the individual "walls" shorter compared to others shapes, which makes them less prone to bend.</p>\n\n<p>The material efficiency was proven by Thomas Hales in 1998, according to <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/hexagons_are_the_most_scientifically_efficient_packing_shape_as_bee_honeycomb.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/hexagons_are_the_most_scientifically_efficient_packing_shape_as_bee_honeycomb.html</a>. His paper "The Honeycomb Structure" is available at <a href="https://www.communitycommons.org/wp-content/uploads/bp-attachments/14268/honey.pdf" rel="noreferrer">https://www.communitycommons.org/wp-content/uploads/bp-attachments/14268/honey.pdf</a></p>\n'}]
['https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/3633', 'https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com', 'https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/6090/']