How Strong are 3D Printed Connections?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2024
- Finally we're testing every single connection!
Help support this channel! / needitmakeit
If you're curious how strong any of the 3D printed connections really are, we were able to get some pretty telling results.
I believe that it is possible to print strong parts which can take the abuse if we choose the right connections and materials, we have a long way to go still to come up with the ultimate connection that is superior in every way and works well for 3D printing, this video helps to guide us in the right direction to help make even better choices so that we can prevent failure and end up with a successful big project in the end.
This was a fun one to test out and look out for the next video where we take the connections through the torque test to see how well the perform and if the results align with this video of will they be completely different?
Link to all of the connections!
makerworld.com/en/models/496154
One way to support this channel is through my affiliate links (where I receive a small commission). It helps me to continue to provide high-quality content videos. Thank you for your support!
Bambu Filament Shown in Videos
shrsl.com/4ks0j
#1 Core XY - Best bang-for-buck
QIDI Q1 Pro - qidi3d.com/products/q1-pro?sc...
This printer isn't as full featured as the X1C, but it is very capable and very precise. It also has a heated chamber and can reach higher hot end temps.
#2 Core XY - Most features with great results but Pricey $$
Bambu X1C - shrsl.com/4j1gz
Panda Jet For Bambu P1 and X1 Series (Tested and proven to work well)
PANDA JET: shrsl.com/4jhht
DIGITAL SCALE AMAZON LINKS
amzn.to/4eCX0nT - (US)
amzn.to/4eGySkd - (Canada)
NEW MIC (I bought this)
amzn.to/3vcMKAr - Rode Wireless ME mic (Saved me about 4+ hours/vid)
amzn.to/3NBFvZe - Mag clip (Super handy, but a little pricy)
#3dprinting
#x1c
#strong 
Хобби
A key takeaway, is that brutal changes in section area is going to create stress concentration, at which point it's going to fail in an area of minimum section, where the stress is highest. We can see this very well in the echo lock.
Thanks Neighbour, the Echo lock printed in this orientation isn't ideal, also if you saw the previous video, it was quite a bit larger and only used 1, however I tried to adapt it better, to have a slight scarf as well...more work can be done of course.
Thank you for the video. i appreciate that you’re taking 3d printing in a different direction than other channels. I’m also sorry for the commenters on here that sound like they’re just angry people in general. “Useless tests” - really? He used the scientific method with a control sample and all pieces were tested under the same conditions, so the tests are valuable. If you want to test different infill patterns, that’s a different test altogether.
Nice! It would be interesting to see the same test repeated with the use of an adhesive. Would those joint with larger surface areas fair better than those with smaller surface area.
100% I will make sure to have a video to test that out. I'll finish up the torque video and then work on a video using adhesive. Do you have an adhesive you'd recommend?
I'd say super glue (cyanoacrylate) as that's probably the most accessible and commonly used. But you could try it with a gorilla glue or something too
Congrats on all your recent growth, well deserved!
Thank you for putting the time and effort into this series. Quinte interesting results indeed!
Great video! I'm loving this series and it's helped me so much to get more out of my smaller printer on bigger projects
Very interesting and wonderfully executed. Thank you!
Great video series man, keep up the cool work!
For the rig, you could install the weight scale below the sample. You fix it to the ground and place the sample just above. You can then attach the sample to the liver and use a car jack to push it from below, you'll be then able to apply exactly the force you want on the liver.
Cool, I like the idea of using a jack too, the long lever isn't ideal and I want to do some larger scale testing and this isn't going to be up to the job as-is.
@@NeedItMakeItA screw is another good option. Go look at the test rig Matthias Wandel built. He's got it automated with a stepper and load cell, so it can generate force vs deflection graphs automatically.
@@dack42Did you mean Matthias Wandel? I think his channel is also called Wood Gears. Lately been doing home built mill from wood?
@@phizc yes, autocorrect messed it up.
This channel and others doing great testing are pushing the material science and understanding of 3d prints forward into a golden age. Thank you.
We're getting there, I'd love to be able to take all of the comments and come up with the best possible connection for 3D printing, maybe one for all orientations, or different for each. Hopefully testing parts at this scale helps to understand the possibilities and limitations of the materials a bit better. You're very welcome!
Thanks for taking the time to do this and share it all, it's been really interesting and useful to watch.
If you're doing something similar in future, personally I would have liked to see the control sample tested first as this gives a benchmark to keep in mind when viewing the subsequent joints in the test rig.
My pleasure, it's a pretty interesting topic. I'm trying to extract somewhat useful info rather than testing tiny samples of prints.
Sure, that makes sense too, I took the approach of testing what I figured was going to be very difficult to deflect and break last. I want to modify the rig to have a hydraulic jack setup and something to be able to accurately measure with a dial indicator. Eventually I can use a linear encoder, but I'm not up to that level with my programming abilities yet to set that up, it'd be nice to have all data in a digital output.
Oh, I didn't consider that this was the order that you tested them in. That makes perfect sense but it might make sense to move the baseline to the start when you edit things together.
I thought the visual reference of the dial indicator was pretty good. If you have a second camera, you could take a still photo each time you add weight which should make it easier to go through after the fact and transcribe all the deflection results. I'm thinking that pressing right to see the next photo should be a lot easier than scrubbing forward through the video to find the next spot.
With all of that said, it might not work if you move to a hydraulic jack, I don't know how repeatable they are in terms of how much for each "pump" adds. You could look at setting up a block and tackle to add extra "leverage" if you still want to be able to add weighted bags.
Damn that was interesting! Thanks for making this and doing it so thorough!
I have another really cool one coming up, I don't know the outcome yet, but I'll be doing both deflection and torque on the parts today and should be ready for Saturday. I'm hopeful that it will work the way I think and it could be a great option to make stronger parts without using any more material.
That was entertaining. The results really surprised me. I tried to guess beforehand on first and last.....i was wrong. lol Love this style of content...lots to learn and take away from this. Thanks Mike.
Excellent test rig.
Nice version 1 setup 👍🏻
Here some ideas for version 2:
- Attach the scale to the top so it doesn’t fall for every test
- Motorise the load so you get a more precise and linear increase
- If possible, record the data from the scale so you can plot a graph of the results. Not too complicated to do with an Arduino and a load cell in case commercial scales are expensive
Keep it the good work and thanks for sharing 👍🏻
Hi! Very interesting series about connections. But it seems to me that the test is not very objective because of the difference in the length of the lock, the longest ones logically won, you can make a lock almost the length of the entire part and then it will surpass parts without a lock, since it will have more solid layers. I think it is worth making a fixed length for all locks, for example 30 mm and all should fit within this limit.
Yes that's a good point, it's certainly not apples to apples, it's not really designed for that, it's testing as close the original connections as possible, I'd like to further refine each connection, but that's a separate series. I've tried to adjust each connection so that they're more similar, it just isn't that simple, since each is quite a bit different. Some I feel are better for a connection using adhesive, more glue surface area for example. That in itself can be a follow up if there is some interest.
It would be good to see a continuation where you refine the designs. The under squint in particular looks like it could be massively improved since it only failed when that “tooth” at the end deformed enough to spring out and the whole thing was still intact afterwards. If you deepen that tooth and maybe make it a sharper angle then that could help its strength a lot.
I can certainly think of reasons to make joints without any sort of adhesive or chemical - if nothing else, avoiding the PPE costs and health risks is a bonus. But I do think that if you need to join two parts made from polymer, and that joint needs to be any kind of load-bearing, then solvent-welding is a very, very, very good idea. I'd be extremely interested in a comparison where you took the best to joints from this video, and solvent-welded them using MEK or ethyl acetate. My instinct is that they've be very nearly as strong as the continuous-print version, but I'd love to see that proved out.
I think a couple of connections would function better if they were rotated 90°. Most of the connections show 1 weekpoint on the bottom or at the top, while turned 90°, these weekpoints wouldn't be there and the stress would be more over the rest of the joint.
Good point, it would be interesting to see these loaded in the other direction
Also, the screwed joint had 2 screws on one side and 1 on the other. I think it would have fared better if it was rotated 180° since the 2 screw holes removed too much material.
Where were you with your channel when the Westfold fell?
You have answers to my questions, and i could not find you for so long!
LOL, I'll have to go back and watch those movies, I'm rusty on the lore.
I was hoping the echo lock would do better, but in hindsight it's obvious why it didn't.
One way you could improve your test rig is with a system of pulleys in series; that'd increase the ratio a lot.
3rd! love your research, keep it up!
I like watching your tests. Since you're testing beam deflection load....have you considered a 3 piece joint where the lower "half" is optimized for tension and the top for compression?
I'm most interested in testing with different nozzle sizes, will be interesting to see how the same overall thickness wall will do with less interfacing to other walls for strength at the given thickness. Then also strength in just total wall count nozzle vs nozzle.
If you install the heat set inserts on the far side of the connection, instead of the near side, they have to pull THROUGH the part rather than pull OUT of the part. Should be WAY stronger.
Thanks!
I wonder how these would fare in the other orientation, placing load across the joint not on the join (rotate 90 degrees)
you could use a strap to increase load
I don't know if your conclusion is quite correct. It looked more to me like the pressure points from the pins at the top were in between the ends of the joints on the strongest ones, while they were on the outside of the weakest ones, all except the screwed one. And the screwed one had no 'fingers' at all, which most likely contributed more to the failure than anything else. I bet if you made the drop lock joint 'longer' (as long as the sine wave or undr squin) then it would perform significantly better, because you're gaining leverage from the ends of the joint which are your 'grip points'.
That, or move your pressure pins to be wider than all the joint widths, which would still show a difference just due to leverage on the joint ends.
are you using Fuzzy skin feature? if yes please give your settings and layer height because it looks perfect
Awesome! Would you test these again with adhesive?
Nice work.
The "Sine Wave" seem to fail from insert pull out rather than direct stress. It would be interesting to see how much better the "Sine Wave" performs with a nut & bolt fixing.
Also, the "Screw Lap" went at a weak point due to less material around the double-screw fixing. Two single-screw fixings might perform better.
Likely still not as good as the "Sine Wave", but a simpler design process is the trade-off.
For the echo lock you should reprint it with rounded dove tail shapes, it looks like all the stress was on the point of the dove tail.
Edit to add. Some of these joints could’ve been much better for comparing against the continuous. The bottom of most of the connections are very secure in the top half, but the bottom half of your joint designs have very little contact to fight against the rotational force being applied. It’s like putting two unequal levers side to side and overlaying their ends and calling it a table saw even tho it looks like this ( V) vs (-)
Absolutely, I tried to keep them pretty close to the original designs, but I think each of them can be improved and we can work on perfecting the designs. I'd like to finish the Torque testing for the next video and then maybe when we have all of that info we can see how they can be improved. I also want to compare these connections against traditional connections in wood of the same sizes, just so that we have something that we can compare against to know where we stand.
good video!
I think you could have a look at the “My Tech Fun” channel and his testing methods, you could probably adapt some of his tests to work for your larger test pieces, he manages to generate some pretty large forces using some kind of ratcheting mechanism.
I'd like to see how these joints hold up with adhesive instead of with screws or friction. The drop lock looks like it would excel with adhesive. Also, what about the force being applied along the length of the joint instead of perpendicularly? That would be interesting. And finally, what if you put a collar around each joint?
Went pretty much as expected except that the difference between the best connection and solid is rather huge. I would've expected less of a difference there, but you did also only use screws. Any chance you could test the best two with glue and/or sticking a soldering iron to the pieces to melt them together?
If you take a pipe and slide it on your lever you can increase the weight by sliding it out. For more granular and easy weight adjustment.
Absolutely, I want to go a bit bigger I wonder whether I should swap out the arm for something a bit more substantial.
@@NeedItMakeIt you could also use a ballscrew, pulley or electric winch. But I like the simple physics of making the lever variable length.
If your parts are designed properly and printed in the right orientation, super glue does a perfect job. I've never had a glue joint failure.
Inserts are good if you plan on screwing and unscrewing things many times, without destroying the threads (like a battery cover).
Have you considered testing by pulling against the joint along the length og the parts? I suspect that that might be a more realistic use case for the joint.
You need a sign wave locking ying and yang bar.
Perhaps a better way of weighting the scale is instead of adding weights to it, secure the entire apparatus to the floor or secured workbench, then fashion a hand crank and spool with some steel cable. The more you wind the cable the more force gets put on the scale. It would also be easier on your body 😂. Perhaps a quicker solution would be to buy a very heavy duty Ratchet strap fastened to the floor.
Thanks 👍
You're welcome
What is the chance of you testing an "undr squinted sine wave?" Both profiles are such a similar shape, had 2 different failures, and performed really well.
Also, just a thought, i could imagine a short and wide dovetail shape on top and bottom of the undr squint insert, probably with a hair of extra clearance on the dovetail side that that wouldn't be pushing outward, might add some very beneficial bite from the center of the connection. Similar to how the threaded insert and bolt are grabbing from the center of the sine wave.
The joint should be rotated to the direction of the load, so they dont deflect apart. Perhaps even a design that offered locking in each plane.
Yes, absolutely, I did this to avoid supports to achieve a really good fit between parts, but it'd be good to do a test at 45 degrees and at 90 degrees.
I wonder what numbers e.g. pine or spruce would get. Harder woods are probably _harder_ to break...
Overall, the stress even the worst part could take was quite impressive 👍
Well it just so happens that the wood vs plastic test is coming up, I think it will be in 1 1/2 weeks, possibly 2 weeks. I'll do White Pine, Maybe Spruce and then something like Soft Maple.... if my rig can handle it. I would split the wood by hand, but realistically people don't do that much anymore, testing woods with grain slightly out of alignment is probably more typical. I'm glad you thought it was impressive too!
The mechanics of the fails themselves is quite interesting - there are as far as I can see two main types of it - when the weak point breaks (thin "hand") and basically when the part that had to be inside the cut from the other side slips out. The first type is "fairy" easy to address by just increasing the scale of the part - however this isn't smth what will help if we don't have a room to increase the size of the part, however the second type is far more interesting - it feels like if the overlaps would be bigger, that would help to keep the joint from breaking, but on the other hand if we look at the way the weakest joint fails it is immediately visible why that wouldn't work. It's arguably counterintuitive - but really interrsting to see. That actually made me to try to inagine what can be improved in the joints - of the second type, so actually boosted creativity, which (at least for myself) I feel like a very good thing. Thus, thanks a lot for Your content - it's really interesting! Please continue with Your approach - that works really well!
I'd love to pick one or two and refine them using your feedback to come up with the ultimate, it's not so simple, because we need the conditions, I've been trying to use parts which represent a part of a frame, something at least that's easy to wrap our heads around. I would have loved to do the torque testing in this video, but I'm still waiting for the torque digital readout to arrive, so that will be next and I think it should help to see which connections work well in torsion also, and from there we can really home in on which ones are worth putting more time into. I have 2 or three more interesting connections I'd like to try also they can have a dedicated video with the data included too. Thanks for your thoughts on this!
The screw lap joint looks like it would have been higher up in the rankings if the screws were in a straight or zig zag line along the length. The two screws side by side weakened the joint too much.
If possible, put the heat set threads on the outside. My thinking is that more material between the stress points, i.e., head and nut.
Absolutely, I believe that connection has a lot of potential, in the next video, I've made a slight adjustment because I feel as though I didn't do it justice.
The lap joint didn't fail the printed cf filament failed. Also you should have done a continuous black one as well because it was the weaker one.
The two contact point block on the test rig skew the test results because the length of the joints varies.
Would reducing the amount of "fingers" in the drop and echo lock improve it's performance?
Very nice comparison but the max load that you report are not always consistent to the max value that we see in the video of the test.. (40kg on the video vs 24kg reported). But all other aspects of your test methodology looks really good.
The tests should be done with the same filament for each parts and the different filament have different strengths. From the video the black parts break first.
Interesting point, the material is the same, however the color is different and there will be slight differences in their performance, so that is valid. I wanted the color to better show the failure. I'm not convinced that the color is the main source, the connections always have the "scarf" gong in the same direction, but it would be good to eliminate the variable. That's a good eye for detail you have!
Am I misunderstanding how these measurements are being taken? The scale clearly reads 41kg at 7:40 but you state the maximum force is 25kg? I assumed this would be like Matthias Wandel's experiments where he measures the maximum force it can withstand before the force decreases.
You said you were also releasing the STEP files and/or Fusion 360 files, but I only see STL and 3MF on the linked page. Am I missing something, or have you not released them? I'm dying to see exactly how they're all constructed. Your explanation in prior videos didn't quite do it for me.
Your test rig clearly needs some netting on each side to catch the launched parts out the side :-).
I looked a the high speed, and even it had trouble capturing the parts flying out, so that's a good idea. I enjoyed seeing that, but I'll have to make some adjustments for safety.
In sinewave replace heat insert with a nut
Few points of criticism. Hopefully you'll be level-headed and take this as a learning opportunity, which is fairly rare in the content creator space.
There's a reason why most bend loading tests use three points, other than convenience there's also advantages with strain rate and loading geometry. In the case of testing joinery like this, it would also put the loading in the center of the joint rather than in two points mirrored from center, the main issue here is that none of your joints are equalized in width making for bad comparisons, a short dovetail will have different properties than a long butt or scarf joint, especially with the distance of your central two points. You should also be posting results in terms of stress, not outright force, the equation for bending being the bending moment divided by the section modulus; Stefan (CNC Kitchen) has explained this in at least their 3Dp v wood video. Speaking of Stefan, you may heavily benefit from understanding their testing methodology and understanding why properly scientific testing is more productive. You should also invest into a motor-based setup that can apply force gradually and consistently over time, adding bags of sand, while minimal (for now, imagine if you got into the scale of adding 10 pound weights as a metric), will introduce shock forces if the load is not eased into position, and this is also demonstrated in your final test of snapping your solid bending bar given you had to apply multiple attempts to break it, which also introduces steps of applied force that are not gradual nor consistent which will remove any elastic deformation between each applied step before applying more force to the bar; it's just bad science, and that leads to bad numbers, hitting a wall with a wrecking ball multiple times does not show total breaking force needed in one gradual shot rather it shows how many times you need to hit with a consistent force, same with driving a nail with wood where it's about number of strikes of consistent shock force rather than a one-shot of consistent gradual force, etc. And while on this topic, I do also think that shock forces are another important metric, though the testing methodology is entirely different, mostly because of realistic use of the tested items, no realistic force within normal use of an item is going to have gradual and consistent application of force on it, realistic use is almost always shock forces or near-instantaneous loading; take for example setting down a heavy object, how many times have you put a gradual and consistent force from the instant surfaces touch to where the full weight of the object is down, the answer is never, because the force curve is a very rapid ramp from no weight to full weight even with the gentlest of setting a heavy object down; another great example is walking and running, you always have a heel-strike, and it's called a strike for a reason. Material properties are one thing, but realistic use is another thing, this is why doing both a loading test and a shock test are important.
If you're looking to become a channel based in engineering, for the love of integrity, and the love of good numbers and good science, do things properly. Honestly, just reach out to Stefan, or even Matthias Wandel, and they could probably give you a crash course on how to design a proper testing setup for both tension and bending testing of material, given both of them have designed their own test setups and I believe both of them may have tested shock forces as well in the past.
I would also include more test samples. Average of 3 is a starting point, most engineers prefer at least an average of five to discover early outliers within a set. You should also test different print orientations, as there's three cartesian axes to work with, then preferred orientation if a part requires it. Testing in more common materials is also more helpful for the community, carbon-filled plastic will always be a specialty filament and there'll always be debate around this specific filament. In joinery like this you should also be testing joint orientation, not just print orientation. Etc. This is essentially R&D, and R&D is not cheap, that's just part of engineering. You should also be separating attachment method into separate groups, you should not be mixing fastener-based joints with friction-based joints, similarly you should only include adhesion-based joints within their own discrete set of results; of which the latter is where butt joints actually belong, a fastener set between two surface does not make a true butt/lap joint. If you really want to get scientific with specific joints, such as the dovetail in this series, you should explore varieties of the dovetail, start with the classic perpendicular then expand into dovetails on an angle, then other varieties such as a curved dovetail, etc.; again this also gets into why print orientation testing and joint orientation testing are important variables, you're exploring what makes a joint stronger and explaining why by extrapolating the data from proper testing. I'd also do an intermittent loading test on an extra sample just to separate out elastic and plastic deformation and the point of transition; I would also reconsider where you mark your failure point, a lot of people will consider the transition into plastic deformation the failure point as it's all downhill from that point forward, some people will consider damage (cracking, in most cases) to be the failure point, then there's people who consider full separation as the failure point of which this should be defined as catastrophic failure, where earlier material failure transitions into catastrophic failure being a better way to look at the situation- moment of plastic deformation should be the initial point, damage should be the point of no return and in need of repair, and catastrophic being the end of the spectrum and need of replacement.
Also, if you're testing pieces to failure, especially on pieces that will loosely fall away, ALWAYS have personal safety set up.
Again, I hope you take this as a learning opportunity to better your content creation. I want to see your channel grow, but if you're going to be producing lackluster numbers with bad science, then you should be for entertainment purposes only and not dabble in anything within the sphere of engineering. Why? Because you'd be laughed out of a room of actual engineers and anyone who understands good science and decent numbers. The maker community already has enough bad information floating around by people who don't quite understand what they're doing or talking about, which is why proper engineers like Stefan are a blessing for the community, because good science, decent numbers, and good communication abilities can fix a lot of misconceptions that are bred from bad information. Anyone who dabbles into the education side of things, of which engineering pieces are a part of, has a due diligence of doing things properly for the purposes of good information; else anyone who spreads less than good information, out of ignorance or malice, is a fraud. Be on the side of good and accurate information with proper methodology, use proven proper scientific methodologies and don't fall for the fallacy of 'I think this is good enough therefore it is good enough' that many people inevitably fall for then believe is the factually correct method.
start @14:36 your welcome.
Awesome video, please please try them with 5 top layers and 100 bottom layers or however many is needed to complete fill the model with zero infill.
The print wont take that much longer and will be alot harder to break
Hi, ¿can you explain the difference vs 100% infill ie? Thanks
@@aquamansurfer i think it just changes the way it's layered , i will have to look in the slicer how it moves
Why gyroid instead of Cubic infill? Shouldn't the Cubic infill be the best for overall strength in all directions?
Edit: For the drop lock you recorded 24.9kg yet then scale went to 43kg before it mostly failed and touched the foam. Your weight is from testing an already weakened piece.
Your comment made me go rewatch and your entirely correct, it held strong til the 43kg split then it started counting back up before breaking. It was much stronger. If it didn’t separate at the 43 I wonder how long it could’ve held the appropriate weight before seperating
Check the CNC kitchen video about "infill", gyroid is the most uniform over all directions.
@@olafmarzocchi6194 Yes, it is the most uniform, but cubic infill is actually slightly stronger in one of the directions, and just as strong in the other and prints just as fast with less material usage.
So I still stand by it being the best for overall strength in all directions.
I find gyroid to be good for prints from TPU that need to be squishy.
@@MiChAeLoKGBno, gyroid is better in overall strength on top of uniformity
Gyroid is a bit better because it doesn't overlap the previous layers, sometimes those overlaps cause voids at the intersection. There are some new ones I'd like to try out in Orca. I wanted to stick with a tried and true what works well with PETG-CF, I'm open to any infill though. For the drop lock, it was not ideal, since it had already failed far sooner, I took what I thought was the point of failure, also my setup wasn't ideal, the parts came in contact with the top of the scale, which allowed them to look like they were able to withstand added force, when they were not.
👍👍😎👍👍
Nice! Thanks for leaving a comment.
Drop lock got robbed in this testing. It hit way higher numbers than got recorded
Why do the continuous bar by hand when you can do it by seat? 🍑 Keepo
Gyroid made this whole test useless
exactly! it should've been cubic.
Well not really since it's about comparison and they all used it.
@@802Garage keep worrying about cars big man.
@@802Garage and thats how you get botched results like its now.
@@xanarchyUK Hahaha given your cocky attitude with zero substance I'd be willing to bet one of my cars I know more about 3D printing than you sweetie. 😘 You'd be shocked to know I have an entire degree in another area of expertise too!