Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 682–687
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference

Compressive Strength Assessment of 3D Printing Infill Patterns

Benoît Perneta, Jacquelyn Kay Nagelb, Hao Zhangb*
a
Franco-German Institute for Technology and Business (DFHI/ISFATES), Rue Augustin Fresnel, 57073 Metz, France
b
College of Integrated Science and Engineering, James Madison University, 701 Carrier Dr., Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +01-540-568-2711. E-mail address: zhang9hx@jmu.edu

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of 3D printed products, material consumption becomes a concern in additive manufacturing in recent years.
Various lightweight structures (e.g., infill patterns) have been designed and used to reduce material use while supporting product functionality.
Product designers and engineers often experience difficulties in choosing the infill structure when solid material is not necessary in an application,
thus losing the potential of material and cost saving opportunities. This is due to a lack of comprehensive study on mechanical properties and
sustainability performances of these infill patterns. The objective of this study is to understand the mechanical behaviors, economic and
environmental benefits through compression test, life cycle cost assessment, and life cycle assessment. Fourteen common infill patterns including
Grid, Lines, Triangle, Cubic, Tetrahedral, Concentric, Concentric 3D, Zigzag, Gyroid, Octet, Cross, Cross 3D, Tri-hexagonal and Quarter Cubic
have been examined. The samples were printed with ASTM D695 standard cylinders made of Polylactic Acid using fused deposition modeling.
Compression tests were conducted on an Instron test platform and the data was collected to compare the load and weight relations of all structures.
The research results will provide a comprehensive mechanical inventory for product design and manufacturing. In addition, this study identifies
opportunities for more robust infill pattern design for additive manufacturing.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.

Keywords: Type your keywords here, separated by semicolons ;

1. Introduction manufacturing time and enhanced performance are the main

After a few decades of development, Additive
Manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D-printing, which is “a
process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model
data, usually layer upon layer” [1], has become a reliable
manufacturing process and is experiencing important market
and technological growth each year [2]. Regular improvement
makes it increasingly more competitive to traditional
(subtractive) manufacturing, where material is removed from a
bigger block of material, usually requiring multiple tools and
machines and including a waste of material. AM allows the
creation of customized parts and the reach of more complex
structures and shapes, often not achievable with subtractive
manufacturing. Minimal material waste, reduced
goals when it comes to designing a 3D-printed part.
When creating a 3D-printed part, the designer has multiple
options: fully filling the pieces which would require a lot of
time and material, ergo money, but provide strong mechanical
abilities, or implementing Infill Patterns (IP) into the pieces to
replicate some of the mechanical properties and provide
stability while making it light. Infill patterns are therefore
important when it comes to optimizing for strength [3]. The
term infill refers to the internal structure of a 3D-printed part. A
multitude of infill patterns are available, each have different
purposes and various mechanical properties like stiffness and
strength. This abundance can generate some difficulties for the
product designer and engineers to choose the most adequate
infill pattern for their build, as they sometimes do not know

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 29th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference.
10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.114

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Benoît Pernet et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 682–687
what pattern would suit their needs the most, resulting in time,
material and performance loss.
Most of the time, the principal goal of the infill pattern is to
emulate or even ameliorate the mechanical properties such as
stiffness and rigidity, of a full part, while saving material and
manufacturing time, and, thus, money. This is the case in the
automotive and aeronautical industries for example, where both
government regulations and consumer demand impact the
seeking of lightweight parts [4]. The strength-to-weight ratio is
the most important factor that affects the choice of a particular
infill pattern. Printing lightweight elements implies the use of
less material and the reduction of the print time. Baich et al.
showed that print cost has more impact on the overall
production cost than material cost [5]. Manufacturing time
being too long is one explanation for the fact that AM still has
not replaced subtractive manufacturing for many series-
produced pieces, although some companies tend to use it
increasingly [6]. Some infill patterns generate longer print
times because of their design (ex: when the angles are too sharp,
the print nozzle has to reduce its speed, therefore making the
print time longer) [7]. The mechanical solicitations that the part
will have to withstand also plays a major role. A component
that is being loaded in multiple directions should be
manufactured with a different pattern than one that is solely
constrained in one direction. A pattern that, for example, is not
aligned with the principal stress field will not be effective
enough and make the part less strong and stiff. [8] A designer
should also consider the infill percentage or density, as it is a
criterion with a high influence on the mechanical abilities of the
part. Most of the time, a completely full print will mechanically
perform better than one with a density below 100%, but the
effective printing time has to be taken into account [9].
Engineers and designers can choose among an infinity of
infill patterns for their part, and when it comes to actual
workpieces, infill patterns play a major role, hence it is
important to select the one that fits the most. There are two
major categories of infill patterns. 2D Infill Patterns are
identical on every layer and provide the majority of their
support in one dimension. 3D infill patterns, on the other hand,
form 3D infill structures that add strength to the part in a more
uniform way. Most of the 3D infill patterns are labelled as
isotropic, meaning that they are equally strong in all directions
[10]. Grid, Lines, Triangle, Concentric, Zigzag, Cross and Tri-
hexagonal are all 2D infill patterns, and they are patterns that
will be investigated in this paper. Their design repeats itself
layer after layer, although sometimes it rotates on itself from
layer to layer to create some different shapes. Concentric 3D,
Cubic, Gyroid, Octet, Tetrahedral, Cross 3D and Quarter Cubic
are all examples of 3D infill patterns and complete the list of
infill patterns investigated in this paper.
Different slicer software have different infill patterns
available. This study only tests 14 of them, but other patterns
and designs are provided by different slicer software [12].
Research always goes forward as new patterns are being
created, mostly inspired from nature [13]. Those bioinspired
designs are however not available in classical slicer software
infill patterns library and are, like other slicer software’s
patterns, thus outside the scope of this study.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
683
Additive Manufacturing still being in development implies a
multitude of research has been and is being and are conducted
to improve the technique. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a
good asset to help the research about infill patterns. Using it to
derive infill patterns from the predicted stress profiles within
parts can increase substantially the stiffness of a part while
maintaining a similar loading value [14]. The same way, an
increase of 3.5 times the loading capacity of a beam filled with
the honeycomb infill pattern has been observed with an
adaptation of the pattern to the predicted stress profiles [15].
Although the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) process
does not permit it, using Computer Aided Design (CAD) to
design infill patterns might be the future of this field. It can
allow multiple different infill patterns in the same part to obtain
better mechanical properties [16]. CAD also helps creating new
infill patterns such as bioinspired ones [13]. A new approach
combining structural analysis and optimization based on human
bones structures has been presented by Wu et al. to “assist users
in designing lightweight and mechanically strong prints” [17].
Lattice structures are also a solution that is being researched
[18]. All the aforementioned aspects are outside of the scope of
this study but are important since they focus on infill patterns
and how to improve them.
Some tests have already been conducted to try to understand
the influence and properties of infill patterns better. Fernandez-
Vicente et al. proved that while the infill density mainly
determines the tensile strength, the chosen infill pattern also
plays a role in this strength [19]. Racz also studied the tensile
properties of 3D printed specimens considering different infill
rates, infill patterns and printing orientation [20]. While testing
the tensile strength of different infill patterns, Yeoh et al. also
tested the hardness of parts filled with different patterns [21].
Saniman et al. investigated the flexural properties of various
types of infill patterns and concluded that the introduction of
an infill pattern reduced the flexural strength by at least 50%
and the flexural strain by not more than 40% [22]. Other studies
showed that printing parameters, i.e. build orientation, layer
thickness, feed rate and printing path had tangible effects on
strength, stiffness, tensile strength and tensile modulus
[23&24].
Despite the already conducted research, there is still a gap
which this paper’s research is trying to fill in: how do the
mainstream infill patterns compare to each other under
compressive tests. The running of such tests should provide
some information about the behaviour of each of the fourteen
patterns as well as about the importance of infill density.
Consequently, the goal of this study is to propose a
classification of fourteen of the most used infill patterns based
on their strength-to-weight ratio.
This study will benefit the engineering community by
providing designers, engineers and even private individuals a
ranking of the infill patterns to choose from when they want to
design a piece that should be lightweight and will be loaded in
compression.
This paper will first detail the methodology of the testing
then display and analyse the results, and finally conclude with
a comparison of the infill patterns and discuss what could be
done in the future.
 684 Benoît Pernet et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 682–687

2. Methodology inch). The CAD model with dimensions in mm is shown in

Figure 1. All cylinders were created with the same size to avoid
This section describes the materials, structures, and the potential product system errors. Figure 2 shows the dimensions
compression setup for the experiment in this study. of the test specimens.

2.1. Printing parameter and materials 2.2. Testing setup

A 3D model was designed using Solidworks software. To be Before proceeding with the test, all the specimens were
consistent in testing method, all specimens were printed using weighted. A scientific balance with a precision of 0.01 g was
the same parameters with a Dremel Digilab 3D45 machine. The used for the weight measurements.
printer has a build volume of 255x155x170 mm. The 3D model The compression tests were performed on an Instron 5567
was sliced using two different software, Dremel DigiLab 3D Machine. Figure 3 represents the actual setup of the
Slicer and Ultimaker Cura. Table 1 presents the printing compression testing machine used in this study. Test cylinders
parameters used to manufacture the test specimens. were carefully placed in the exact same location for every
iteration of the test. Similarly, sing the machine’s integrated
Table 1. Printing parameters of the testing specimens ruler, the starting height for each test was always the same.
Printing parameters Values R6.35
Printing temperature 230 °C
Build plate temperature 60 °C
Layer height 0.1 mm

25.40
Wall thickness 0.8 mm
Printing speed 50 mm/s

The material used for the printing of specimens was

Polylactic Acid (PLA) and all the specimens were printed from
the same spool. Figure 1 presents the fourteen infill patterns Figure 1. Test specimen with dimensions (mm)
tested in this study. They are the commonly used patterns
available on the slicer software Dremel DigiLab 3D Slicer and Factors affecting compression test include extension rate,
Ultimaker Cura. Cura being free and open-source makes it one maximum reachable load, and maximum reachable extension.
of the most used slicer software, therefore are these patterns The Instron machine has a maximum load of 30,000 newtons,
also commonly used. They are, grid, lines, cubic, triangles, 24,500 newtons was the value used as the maximum load. The
tetrahedral, concentric, concentric 3D, zigzag, gyroid, octet, extension rate was selected to be consistent with a prior study.
cross, cross 3D, quarter cubic, and tri-hexagonal. Many of these The compression test parameters and the physical setup of the
patterns were designed for lightweight structures for material test are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3.
saving in 3D printing. All specimens were printed with
Table 2. Compression test parameters
“zigzag” as their pattern for top and bottom layers.
ASTM D695-15, the “Standard Test Method for Test parameters Values
Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics” defines the standard
Extension rate 2 mm/min
test specimen for strength measurement as a form of a right
cylinder whose length is twice its principal diameter [25]. The Maximum reachable load 24500 N
preferred size is 12.7 mm in diameter by 25.4 mm (0.50 by 1 Maximum reachable extension 10 mm

Figure 2.The fourteen infill patterns tested

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Benoît Pernet et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 682–687 685

Slicer software. The five “Grid” cylinders for the compression

test were designed with infill density of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%
and 100%.

Figure 5. Grid infill pattern with infill density from 20% (left) to 100% (right)
in Dremel DigiLab 3D Slicer

No explanation was found to explain why some patterns

cannot fill the inside of the specimen completely while the infill
Figure 3. Test setup density is set to 100% (as in Fig 5). Three patterns (zigzag, lines
and concentric) are available to fill the top and bottom layers
of the print. When a specimen is filled with one of these three
3. Analysis and results patterns for both the infill and the top and bottom layers, it
seems to be completely full and the weight measured seems to
This section describes all the tests conducted in this study confirm this. However, their respective maximum loads differ,
and provides analysis on the results. which implies that even if they seem full, the infill pattern still
has an impact on the mechanical properties of the specimen.
3.1. Operation consistency
Table 3. Comparison of "full" cylinders (not to find in Figure 6)
To avoid any processing errors that might occur during the
testing, six identical cylinders were tested. The infill pattern Pattern Max Load (N) Weight (g) α (N/g)
applied was Cubic. The infill density was set at 40%. These Zigzag 9241.41 3.89 2375.68
Lines 9035.39 3.89 2322.72
were printed together, thus they are printed identical. The Concentric 9572.69 3.88 2467.19
aforementioned method was used to test the process. Therefore,
the expected result would be a minimal discrepancy between
The purpose of the experimental research was to determine
the maximum load that each of the cylinders can endure during
which infill pattern would behave the best in terms of
a compression test.
maximum load supported while being the lightest possible. In
this study two types of results are presented, maximum load vs
5000 weight, and a defined load weight ratio. Figure 6 shows the first
4500 results and Figure 7 shows the second results type.
4000
Maximum Load (N)

3500 12000.00
3000
2500
2000 10000.00
1500
1000
8000.00
500
Maximum load (N)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 6000.00
Cylinders

Figure 4. Maximum loads (in N) for each of the 6 cylinders tested 4000.00

As shown in Figure 4, the maximum load reached for each

2000.00
cylinder varied from 4598.14 N (cylinder 5) to 4742.59 N
(cylinder 6). This translates as a 3.05% difference between the
two extreme values. 0.00
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
3.2. Compression tests Weight (g)

For each of the fourteen infill patterns, five different infill 20% infill 40% infill 60% infill 80% infill 100% infill
densities were tested: 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%. They
were selected as 20% incremental to 100%. Figure 5 shows a
Figure 6. All compression test results
screenshot of five models created with the Dremel DigiLab 3D

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 686 Benoît Pernet et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 682–687

Max Load/Weight ratio α for all patterns and all infill % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2900.00

2700.00

2500.00

2300.00
α (N/g)

2100.00

1900.00

1700.00

1500.00

Figure 7. Strength-to-weight ratio α value for all 14 infill patterns with density from 20 to 100%

possible to draw any link between the density being higher than
The maximum load weight ratio (α) is calculated as 20 or 40% and the ratio being higher accordingly possible to
maximum load divided by infill pattern weight. In this study draw any link between the density being higher than 20 or 40%
metric units were used. and the ratio being higher accordingly. But this is a tendency
and some values do not follow this rule, as for example the α
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 of “Grid 60%” being higher than “Cubic 100%” or the α of
α=
𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑡𝑡 “Cross 20%” being higher than “Octet 100%”.
Table 4 below shows the average values of the maximum
In Figure 6, the circles represent all the specimens with 20% load-to-weight ratio α for all infill patterns.
infill density, the squares are for 40% infill density, the
triangles for 60%, the lines for 80% and the diamond represent Table 4. Ranking of the tested infill pattern by their average α value.
the specimens with 100% density. Each colour represents an
infill pattern: Grid (red), Lines (dark red), Cubic (orange), Infill Pattern Average α
Triangle (light green), Tetrahedral (green), Concentric (light Cross 2531.92
blue), Concentric 3D (blue), Zigzag (dark blue), Gyroid (gold), Grid 2505.04
Triangles 2392.60
Octet (grey), Cross (purple), Cross 3D (white), Tri-hexagonal Concentric 2335.80
(yellow) and Quarter Cubic (pink). Tri-hexagonal 2310.20
Figure 6 shows that the maximum load of the infill patterns Lines 2303.82
Cross 3D 2286.24
can tolerate increases with the increase of weight. However, Zigzag 2207.22
some patterns outperform lower weight patterns. For example, Octet 2117.22
for the same 6000 N maximum load, three infill patters can be Concentric 3D 2108.83
chosen, grid 40% infill density with 2.42g, zigzag 60% infill Cubic 2022.91
Tetrahedral 2004.01
density with 3g, and quarter cubic 80% with 3.31g. In this case, Gyroid 1986.82
the designer can choose grid 40% infill density to reduce Quarter Cubic 1943.71
material use in the product and still achieve the same
mechanical strength of the product. For designers, the testing Unsurprisingly, the best strength-to-weight ratio α is
results shown in Figure 6 can be used to assist structural design. presented by specimens with 2D patterns (i.e. Grid, Cross,
Figure 7 shows the different values of α for each pattern and Lines, Triangles, Concentric, Tri-hexagonal, and Zigzag). Only
each infill percentage. Each bar represents one pattern. This Cross 3D performs slightly better than Zigzag. This result can
graph illustrates the fact that infill patterns indeed have an be explained by the fact that 2D infill patterns have their
influence on the mechanical properties of a part. Some, like material always deposited in the same direction, thus they can
Grid or Tri-hexagonal, have rather high α (>2100 N/g for all handle stress from that one direction (here compression) better
five infill densities), while others tend to be generally lower. than in other directions. On the other hand, 3D infill patterns
Although an infill density of 100% does not mean a tend to use more material to be isotropic and support stress
completely full part, almost all patterns with 100% infill equally in all three directions. The same conclusion can be
present a higher ratio than with density from 20 to 80%. This drawn from Figure 7 that 2D infill patterns seem to perform
tendency is also true for 80% infill density having a higher ratio better than 3D infill patterns.
than 20 to 60% infill density, although it diminishes. It
decreases even more for the 60% density, as it is no more

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Benoît Pernet et al. / Procedia CIRP 105 (2022) 682–687
4. Conclusion and discussion
The measured values of compressive properties of 3D
printed specimens, with a standard cylinder shape as described
by ASTM D695-15, produced using a desktop 3D printer have
been presented in this paper. The influence of fourteen different
infill patterns on the maximal supported load in compression
and on the strength-to-weight ratio have been analysed. Each
of the fourteen infill patterns were tested for five different infill
densities, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%.
The results from the compression tests show that the 2D
infill patterns outperformed the tested 3D infill patterns on both
strength-to-weight ratio and peak load. Given that 2D infill
patterns are aligned with both axes of the cylinder and the
principal stress field, the result is not surprising. Among the 2D
infill patterns that performed well, Grid, Cross and Triangles
seem to be the best patterns to choose in order to have a light
part that will support one-dimensional compressive loading.
Overall, infill densities of 80% or 100% are more efficient
than lesser ones in terms of strength-to-weight ratio (α).
Depending on the situation, when a desired part does not have
the need to be as light as possible, it would be recommended to
use a high infill density or even print it in full.
Using this strength-to-weight ratio α could help designers
and engineers reduce the amount of material used in a print as
well as the print time while having the same mechanical
properties. The reduction of material used and print time, hence
energy consumption, is a key to a more sustainable use of the
3D-printing technology. This could also help additive
manufacturing replace traditional subtractive manufacturing
for the creation of series parts, which will further save material.
Investigating the influence of infill patterns’ geometries on
the print time could provide more information to designers for
them to choose the very best solution, as a reduced print time
combined with an effective and lightweight infill pattern would
reduce the production cost even more. Other shapes and/or
different stress methods (i.e. tensile, bending) could also be
explored in order to complete the research and find new usages
or applications for the investigated infill patterns.
References
[1] F42 Committee. (2013). Terminology for Additive Manufacturing
Technologies,. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2792-12A
[2] Global additive manufacturing market growth 2026. (n.d.). Statista.
Retrieved August 11, 2021, from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284863/additive-manufacturing-
projected-global-market-size/
[3] Torres, J., Cole, M., Owji, A., DeMastry, Z., & Gordon, A. (2016). An
approach for mechanical property optimization of fused deposition
modeling with polylactic acid via design of experiments. Rapid Prototyping
Journal, 22, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2014-0083
[4] Schmitt, M., Mehta, R. M., & Kim, I. Y. (2019). Additive manufacturing
infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 26(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2019-
0007
[5] Baich, L., Manogharan, G., & Marie, H. (2015). Study of infill print design
on production cost-time of 3D printed ABS parts. International Journal of
Rapid Manufacturing, 5, 308.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAPIDM.2015.074809
[6] Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., & Hou, L. (2013). Additive
manufacturing and its societal impact: A literature review. The
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
687
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 67(5),
1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4558-5.
[7] Arceo, F. (2021). Infill Patterns; Which is the Strongest one for 3D printing?
– 3D Solved. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://3dsolved.com/infill-
patterns-which-is-the-strongest-one-for-3d-printing/
[8] Aloyaydi, B., Sivasankaran, S., & Mustafa, A. (2020). Investigation of
infill-patterns on mechanical response of 3D printed poly-lactic-acid.
Polymer Testing, 87, 106557.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106557
[9] Alvarez, K., Lagos, R., & Aizpun, M. (2016). Investigating the influence
of infill percentage on the mechanical properties of fused deposition
modelled ABS parts. Ingeniería e Investigación, 36, 110–116.
https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.v36n3.56610
[10] Infill settings. (2020). Ultimaker Support. Retrieved June 14, 2021, from
https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012607079-Infill-
settings.
[11] Mogan, Y., Sa’aban, N., Ibrahim, M., & Periyasamy, R. (2016).
Thermoplastic elastomer infill pattern impact on mechanical properties 3D
printed customized orthotic insole. 11, 6519–6524..
[12] Infill patterns. (2021). Prusa Knowledgebase. Retrieved June 17, 2021,
from https://help.prusa3d.com/en/article/inifill-patterns_177130.
[13] Podroužek, J., Marcon, M., Ninčević, K., & Wan-Wendner, R. (2019).
Bio-Inspired 3D Infill Patterns for Additive Manufacturing and Structural
Applications. Materials, 12(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12030499
[14] Gopsill, J., & Hicks, B. (2016). Deriving Infill Design of Fused Deposition
Modelled Parts From Predicted Stress Profiles. V02AT03A033.
https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2016-59935.
[15] Gopsill, J. A., Shindler, J., & Hicks, B. J. (2018). Using finite element
analysis to influence the infill design of fused deposition modelled parts.
Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 3(3), 145–163.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-017-0034-y.
[16] Lalegani Dezaki, M., & Mohd Ariffin, M. K. A. (2020). The Effects of
Combined Infill Patterns on Mechanical Properties in FDM Process.
Polymers, 12(12), 2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12122792.
[17] Wu, J., Aage, N., Westermann, R., & Sigmund, O. (2018). Infill
Optimization for Additive Manufacturing—Approaching Bone-like Porous
Structures. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
24, 1127. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2655523.
[18] Yu, H., Huang, J., Zou, B., Shao, W., & Liu, J. (2020). Stress-constrained
shell-lattice infill structural optimisation for additive manufacturing.
Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 15(1), 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2019.1647488
[19] Fernandez-Vicente, M., Calle, W., Ferrandiz, S., & Conejero, A. (2016).
Effect of Infill Parameters on Tensile Mechanical Behavior in Desktop 3D
Printing. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 3(3), 183–192.
https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2015.0036.
[20] Racz, L. (2018). Effects of Raster Orientation, Infill Rate and Infill Pattern
on the Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed Materials. Acta Universitatis
Cibiniensis. Technical Series, 69(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/aucts-
2017-0004.
[21] Yeoh, C., Cheah, C., Pushpanathan, R., Song, C., Tan, M., & Teh, P. L.
(2020). Effect of infill pattern on mechanical properties of 3D printed PLA
and cPLA. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
957, 012064. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/957/1/012064.
[22] Saniman, M. N. F., Bidin, M., Reshid, M., mohd shariff, J., & Harimon,
M. A. (2020). Flexural Properties Evaluation of Additively Manufactured
Components with Various Infill Patterns. 29, 4646–4657..
[23] Chacón, J. M., Caminero, M. A., García-Plaza, E., & Núñez, P. J. (2017).
Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition
modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their
optimal selection. Materials & Design, 124, 143–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065.
[24] Wang, K., Xie, X., Wang, J., Zhao, A., Peng, Y., & Rao, Y. (2020). Effects
of infill characteristics and strain rate on the deformation and failure
properties of additively manufactured polyamide-based composite
structures. Results in Physics, 18, 103346.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103346.
[25] D20 Committee. (2015). Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid
Plastics. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0695-15.