I think I found a counterexample to the common wisdom that more walls always create a stronger part.
The pictured S shape is 1.5mm thick, so printing with 2 walls leaves no room for infill. My testing wasn’t very rigorous, but it seems that the hybrid structure of walls + rectilinear infill is 10-20% more rigid than walls alone. The infill adds strength by cris-crossing between adjacent layers.
I think it’s fine to include a concentric top/bottom layer, but multiple identical layers weaken the part. I also tried 0 walls (infill only) and that was garbage.
It’s not really clear what you’re saying, because they’re both “my design”. Could you specify 1 wall vs. 2 wall?
The 1 walled hook has the infill resisting and pulling back as you try to straighten the hook. When it fails, some of the connections between infill and walls break, causing the hook to lose it’s form or original rigidity permanently. In the case of 2 walled hook, this damage should be less severe, making it more durable.
Okay, but if my 2-wall hook bends into a straight line, then I don’t really care about the durability of that no-longer-hook-shaped object.
Edit: I agree that 2-wall could make sense, if your goal is to reuse the hook (with a more appropriate load) after the heavy load falls off. That’s analogous to protecting a wire with a circuit breaker.
The 2 walled hook is closer to solid plastic too, which should give it the most bonded surface area per layer and make it stronger overall.
The bond between layers or the walls is a lot weaker than just solid material.
Sure, but stronger than just infill to walls.
I think what that person is saying is that in your example the left part would probably be more durable because it is flexible and that the part on the right is less durable but more rigid, basically saying your result is expected and makes sense if you are wanting durability over rigidity.
I think that the part that is unclear is that OP is using durability, rigidity, and strength as they are defined by material science not in common English and they way they differ in definition makes that comment make sense. I’m not a material scientist though so I could be wrong.
I hope that is correct and makes sense hah!