Support infill suggestions?

[LePaul 354]

I am printing large pieces that are curved and are printed vertically.

I am experiencing some failures on these prints since the support material fails to hold a section of the piece in place. I'm seeing a failure on every fourth print, so it isn't happening everytime....but with a 16 hour print...it hurts when these fail

Here's the part in Cura

And a close up of the area that fails (the piece falls out on the right)

And the prints as they failed

Should I avoid the Zig Zag Support infill?

Sadly the Cura Manual doesn't say a lot about each infill. (I really wish Ultimaker could make a more complete manual, especially at the rate Cura changes.)

Any suggestions?

[BrayChristopher 36]

That looks like a very challenging part to print. Is there any way that you could cut it up in CAD and join the pieces together after they are printed?

Any chance you could share the STL file?

[valcrow 145]

It looks like you need to turn on "Enable support interface" This will create a more filled layer on top of your support so the support has better, more reliable contact with your part.

For PLA, I usually do around a 0.2mm gap between the support interface layer and the object. If your contact points are small, you can reduce this to 0.12 or so, but anymore usually makes it quite difficult to remove the supports afterwards.

For printing reliability I would err on the side of too close than too far away. Most of your supported surfaces are curved so.

Zig zag looks ok for this model to me!

Edited January 25, 2017 by Guest

[LePaul 354]

That looks like a very challenging part to print. Is there any way that you could cut it up in CAD and join the pieces together after they are printed?

Any chance you could share the STL file?

No, breaking it up and putting it back together would be a terrible idea. That would create stress points of failure for this structural piece.

With a 75% success rate, I just want to see how I can improve

[LePaul 354]

It looks like you need to turn on "Enable support interface" This will create a more filled layer on top of your support so the support has better, more reliable contact with your part.

For PLA, I usually do around a 0.2mm gap between the support interface layer and the object. If your contact points are small, you can reduce this to 0.12 or so, but anymore usually makes it quite difficult to remove the supports afterwards.

For printing reliability I would err on the side of too close than too far away. Most of your supported surfaces are curved so.

Zig zag looks ok for this model to me!

For comparison I tried the model in Simplify3D and pretty much got the identical ZigZag pattern and layout as Cura (2.3.1).

I think you are on to something, the layer top to the support would give it more to hang on to. I'm printing with ColorFabb nGen at 0.2 mm layers. So 0.12 might be worth a try

[DidierKlein 729]

Support interface is great for these kind of supports.

By the way what temp are you printing at? Seems a bit hot (but i could be wrong)

[LePaul 354]

237C since the part is large and ColorFabb suggest no fan/very low fan for best adhesion

[LePaul 354]

It looks like you need to turn on "Enable support interface" This will create a more filled layer on top of your support so the support has better, more reliable contact with your part.

For PLA, I usually do around a 0.2mm gap between the support interface layer and the object. If your contact points are small, you can reduce this to 0.12 or so, but anymore usually makes it quite difficult to remove the supports afterwards.

 

How much Support Interface Density (%) do you suggest?

I'm checking this feature out in Cura 2.4 Beta and see the Support Z Distance you refer to. Default is 0.1

[antiklesys 3]

Hi Le Paul,

I know this may not be what you're asking for, but when I was printing the death trooper helm I had some pieces in which the support was being difficult. I resolved by creating a STL with meshmixer with the support from there and then printing it with Cura with the added support.

Yes, it's a lot of support indeed in the end, but as you said: sometimes you just need it when the printing time is very long.

[LePaul 354]

Someone posted about Meshmixer 2 years ago and I have really fallen behind on where it is, how to use it and such. Didn't it get bought out?

[antiklesys 3]

I don't know.

As far as I can see on the website it's still free to use

[LePaul 354]

I started a print last night using the "Enable support interface".

I set the distance to 0.15 and 50%

The one mistake I made was on the support infill...I accidentally hit and changed it to Triangular (I thought it was the part infill!) I should have left it at zig-zag.

The part is still printing and wow, that support looks pretty solid! I'm curious how hard it will be to remove!

[LePaul 354]

Never never never use triangle infill ! I'll have to use a belt sander to make any progress!

Edited January 27, 2017 by Guest

[DaHai8 74]

But it didn't fail or fall over, did it?

[LePaul 354]

Nope! But I started another one using ZigZag

[LePaul 354]

Well that didn't work either

Matter of fact the line between support and part is an enormous hassle to separate. So much so it broke the portion of the part off when I tried to carefully remove the support

Time to see how Simplify3D does with this print for comparison

[valcrow 145]

What was your Z-distance between your support interface and your object?

 

Well that didn't work either

Matter of fact the line between support and part is an enormous hassle to separate.  So much so it broke the portion of the part off when I tried to carefully remove the support

Time to see how Simplify3D does with this print for comparison

 

[LePaul 354]

0.15

[peggyb 171]

Someone posted about Meshmixer 2 years ago and I have really fallen behind on where it is, how to use it and such. Didn't it get bought out?

I do like and use Meshmixer a lot... it is still there and improving every time.. Good video with useful info:

 

[LePaul 354]

Thanks for that!

[yellowshark 153]

237C since the part is large and ColorFabb suggest no fan/very low fan for best adhesion

 

From the work/testing I have done I think your temp is too low. For ngen adhesion I started at 235 but ended up at 245 or 250. I tested 0% vs 40% fan and could not determine any difference between the two really; I think I ended up at 40% but would not argue with anyone who felt 0% WAS better. Maybe just my printer and the piece I was printing

[valcrow 145]

0.15

 

Oh that's a bit close. I usually go about 0.23 and often that's too close. Anything .15 and under will end up welding itself to the print unless it's ABS or something that doesn't like to stick to itself.

[LePaul 354]

Yes...I wound up with what you would call "welded support" as well! I'm not sure I can sand that off being nGen.

Fundamentally...if we could manually place custom/additional supports like S3D, that would be a huge help.

[LePaul 354]

 

237C since the part is large and ColorFabb suggest no fan/very low fan for best adhesion

 

From the work/testing I have done  I think your temp is too low. For ngen adhesion I started at 235 but ended up at 245 or 250. I tested 0% vs 40% fan and could not determine any difference between the two really; I think I ended up at 40% but would not argue with anyone who felt 0% WAS better. Maybe just my printer and the piece I was printing

 

Well this is a very large part, so no fan is the way to go. On a smaller print, I agree that some fan (40% +/- ) is needed. As for the temp, so far 237 has been the right spot for me. I don't have any of the stringing (retract set to 5.0 helped)

It's interesting to see the variance in temps people have used with success. You mentioned too cool, earlier someone said too hot

[yellowshark 153]

Such is life! It always pays to be flexible when interpreting people's suggestions on settings, not two scenarios are ever the same.