<p>Anything that increase the contact surface withe the bed and is attached with the part will help with adhesion, so using unnecessary support can work, however as you will have to build it for many layers it is neither efficient in terms of wasted material, nor in terms of time.</p>
<p>The solutions you do not want to discuss, notably the brim should solve this type of problem in a more efficient manner.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-04T15:55:15.267Z
Brims is another question.
Aaargh Zombies
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-03T23:06:30.060Z
2023-08-03T23:06:30.060Z
kolergy
<p>Yes, and despite being a waste of material, this is arguably a good strategy. A very tall and thin part like this not only has poor bed contact for adhesion, but may flex under change in direction of motion of the bed (under acceleration), or under drag from the toolhead as it extrudes new material. This is particularly a problem with less-rigid (even moreso with fully flexible, like TPU) material types. Flexing of the existing part of the print while new material is being deposited on top of it can produce dimensional inaccuracy of the final part, as the relative positioning of features is less than perfect.</p>
<p>Adding brims or modeled-in bed surface contact features or whatnot will do nothing to solve this problem, but &quot;gratuitous&quot; supports will.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-03T14:59:01.887Z
2023-09-03T14:59:01.887Z
R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
<p>I have a number of models to print that are supposed to be orientated in a specific way for printing so the layer lines go in the same direction (purely aesthetic), and to ensure that shrinkage occurs evenly so that they fit together nicely (and so that you can fit more on the bed in one go).</p>
<p>For most of the models the suggested orientation is great, but some of the models have a very low contact area with the bed, which has caused me some problems with print failure.</p>
<p>The models are supposed to print support free, or with minimal supports.</p>
<p>Would adding supports in places that they are absolutely not necessary in order to provide me with more surface area help to improve bed adhesion on a Filament printer?</p>
<p>I know from experience that this is effective with rafts\skates on a resin print that pulls away from the print bed, but filament is different and I have minimal experience with it.</p>
<p>The top image is one such model in the official suggested orientation. It is designed to be completely support free, but has poor bed adhesion.</p>
<p>The bottom image has additional &quot;unnecessary&quot; supports added to give it a significantly increased surface area on the bed.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/dkGWf.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dkGWf.png" alt="Example" /></a></p>
<p>Is this an effective way to improve bed adhesion?</p>
<p>I understand that there are many other techniques that can be used to improve adhesion, such as using an adhesion promoting chemical (AKA Gluestick), or using rafts\brims, but could we please avoid discussing those here, as I want to focus in on one specific thing right now.</p>
<p>The printer is a Bambu P1P, but I also have an Ender 5. Plain matte PLA.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-30T06:21:42.187Z
Would it work? Who knows, no one would waste their time doing it when they could just use a raft (which you don't want to discuss)
Kilisi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-30T06:28:06.693Z
I don't want to discuss rafts "here", there are already multiple threads on bed adhesion, if I ask a general question it will likely simply be deleted as a duplicate. This is a specific question about using supports.
Aaargh Zombies
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-03T17:57:38.150Z
I don't think a raft would work very well for the object shown.
TheTridentGuy supports Ukraine
<adhesion><support-structures><bambu>
Can "unnecessary" supports be used effectively to improve bed adhesion on objects with a low surface contact area?
Aaargh Zombies
# Can "unnecessary" supports be used effectively to improve bed adhesion on objects with a low surface contact area?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-07-28)

I have a number of models to print that are supposed to be orientated in a specific way for printing so the layer lines go in the same direction (purely aesthetic), and to ensure that shrinkage occurs evenly so that they fit together nicely (and so that you can fit more on the bed in one go).

For most of the models the suggested orientation is great, but some of the models have a very low contact area with the bed, which has caused me some problems with print failure.

The models are supposed to print support free, or with minimal supports.

Would adding supports in places that they are absolutely not necessary in order to provide me with more surface area help to improve bed adhesion on a Filament printer?

I know from experience that this is effective with rafts\skates on a resin print that pulls away from the print bed, but filament is different and I have minimal experience with it.

The top image is one such model in the official suggested orientation. It is designed to be completely support free, but has poor bed adhesion.

The bottom image has additional "unnecessary" supports added to give it a significantly increased surface area on the bed.

[![Example](https://i.sstatic.net/dkGWf.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/dkGWf.png)

Is this an effective way to improve bed adhesion?

I understand that there are many other techniques that can be used to improve adhesion, such as using an adhesion promoting chemical (AKA Gluestick), or using rafts\brims, but could we please avoid discussing those here, as I want to focus in on one specific thing right now.

The printer is a Bambu P1P, but I also have an Ender 5. Plain matte PLA.

**Tags:** adhesion, support-structures, bambu
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Would it work? Who knows, no one would waste their time doing it when they could just use a raft (which you don't want to discuss)  
> **username_0**: I don't want to discuss rafts "here", there are already multiple threads on bed adhesion, if I ask a general question it will likely simply be deleted as a duplicate. This is a specific question about using supports.  
> **username_2**: I don't think a raft would work very well for the object shown.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-08-03. Score: 3

Anything that increase the contact surface withe the bed and is attached with the part will help with adhesion, so using unnecessary support can work, however as you will have to build it for many layers it is neither efficient in terms of wasted material, nor in terms of time.

The solutions you do not want to discuss, notably the brim should solve this type of problem in a more efficient manner.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Brims is another question.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2023-09-03. Score: 1

Yes, and despite being a waste of material, this is arguably a good strategy. A very tall and thin part like this not only has poor bed contact for adhesion, but may flex under change in direction of motion of the bed (under acceleration), or under drag from the toolhead as it extrudes new material. This is particularly a problem with less-rigid (even moreso with fully flexible, like TPU) material types. Flexing of the existing part of the print while new material is being deposited on top of it can produce dimensional inaccuracy of the final part, as the relative positioning of features is less than perfect.

Adding brims or modeled-in bed surface contact features or whatnot will do nothing to solve this problem, but "gratuitous" supports will.


---

