The multi-compartment box as seen in Autodesk 123D |
[update: if you want more info on this particular model - a Button Battery Box - see my newer post on that]
Background
The "SHELL THICKNESS" setting in slicing software is used to define how many side-by-side solid lines of plastic will be used to line the walls of your model. With thin wall models - like a small box - the wall of the model, the Shell, defines how strong the box will be. So it is quite important. That setting also MUST be a multiplier of your printer's nozzle width. (according to in-app tips, help content and lore, which I now know is misleading).The expectation:
the box in CURA Layer view - notice the hollow walls. |
The same should be true with thicker wall, which of course will be multipliers of my nozzle width. If I have a part which is exactly two times (2X) my nozzle width, it should take two "runs". Same with a 3X setting - as long as I make my Shell Thickness the correct value. So, I thought I would be smart about creating this model - and make my walls 1.05mm in width to get both efficient printing and strong walls. Three runs with my 0.35mm nozzle, and no inefficient "fill" (which has a tendency to be done with tiny back-n-forth x/y strokes) - right?
Wrong.
The Discovery
The printed box with cover |
CURA was doing something strange with my box model - with walls equal to 3X my nozzle width. It would either not make solid walls - or it would use my "FILL DENSITY" setting to inefficiently fill the tiny space between the outer and inner walls of the box. No matter what I did, the model would either not print solid walls (fill density of zero) or would take 68 minutes to finish due to the crazy movements of my print head to fill a space which hardly existed.
The Experiment
I created a simpler square box - just one compartment - 20mm square - with walls which were exactly the thickness of my nozzle width - 0.35mm.The 20mm simple box showed a 33% estimated improvement in print time |
I tried the same box experiment with a 1.05mm wall width and Shell Thickness setting, and CURA would happily print the walls, but it would not fill the middle space - unless I used fill density (any value actually). But again, when I changed the Shell Thickness setting down by one-hundredth of a millimeter (0.01mm) to 1.04mm, Viola - it printed the walls with 3 straight-line runs, as I wanted in the first place. As you can see from the two screen shots, even this simple model had a reduction in estimated print time of 33% (from 15 minutes to 10 minutes).
The Solution
I then took my existing 1.05mm wall, multi-compartment box and changed that setting to 1.04mm "Shell Thickness" (leaving "Fill Density" at ZERO) - and BAM! The walls showed as solid - 3 runs of plastic. MOST IMPORTANTLY, with this one tiny change - hundredth of a millimeter on one parameter - the time to print on my box model went from 68 minutes to 26 minutes - a 62% reduction in time!Summary Data:
Walls of box: 1.05mmShell Thickness setting: 1.05mm
ACTUAL Print time: 68 minutes
Walls of box: 1.05mm
Shell Thickness setting: 1.04mm
ACTUAL Print time: 26 minutes
Nice! The description of concepts is solid and the experiment is a good idea. I look forward to sharing this.
ReplyDeleteI just went through the exact same thing, so confusing! I thought my 2mm walls would print smooth and solid with a .4mm nozzle, but there was tons of horrible zig-zagging (I hate listening to that, and it makes me feel like I'm straining the poor little motors).
ReplyDeleteDid you ever figure out why this works the way it does? Or what the best nozzle to wall thickness ratio is?
I just went through the exact same thing, so confusing! I thought my 2mm walls would print smooth and solid with a .4mm nozzle, but there was tons of horrible zig-zagging (I hate listening to that, and it makes me feel like I'm straining the poor little motors).
ReplyDeleteDid you ever figure out why this works the way it does? Or what the best nozzle to wall thickness ratio is?