## 4 Results and Discussion  
The primary focus of this research was to determine whether print orientation and filling have an impact on the load behavior of printed products in resin 3D printing. This is also an important question because, in addition to the mechanical properties, the material and time consumption of the different alignments vary. The reference value for all evaluations was the test specimen with a 0\({}^{\circ}\) orientation and 100% filling, and the results were compared with this value for all the analyses.  
Figure 5 shows the deformation measurement results for the test specimens printed in different orientations, as specified in the experimental matrix. During the tests, the displacement (deformation) produced by the forming action of the punch was recorded because these data reveal the possible differences between the specimens more clearly; this evaluation approach is customary in DIC analyses.  
The measurement results are clearly visible, and pronounced differences can be identified between the specimens printed in different orientations. It can be seen that as the inclination angle increases, the attainable deformation rises steadily. At a 60\({}^{\circ}\) tilt, however, the deformation is 7% lower than the reference value. This is linked to the observation that, around 60\({}^{\circ}\), the slicing software first changes its automatic support-generation settings. At still higher tilts, the deformation grew by 19.11% and 9.32%, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Specimen** & **Time** & **Volume [ml]** & **Weight [g]** \\ \hline Resin15\({}^{\circ}\) & 34 m 11 s & 37.58 & 41.34 \\ Resin30\({}^{\circ}\) & 42 m 41 s & 37.55 & 41.3 \\ Resin45\({}^{\circ}\) & 49 m 22 s & 37 & 40.6 \\ Resin60\({}^{\circ}\) & 53 m 51 s & 32.36 & 35.6 \\ Resin75\({}^{\circ}\) & 55 m 52 s & 32.21 & 35.43 \\ Resin90\({}^{\circ}\) & 45 m 33 s & 28.8 & 31.68 \\ Resin50\% & 15 m 5 s & 14.78 & 16.26 \\ Resin60\% & 15 m 5 s & 17.13 & 18.84 \\ Resin70\% & 15 m 5 s & 20.21 & 22.23 \\ Resin80\% & 15 m 5 s & 20.21 & 22.23 \\ Resin90\% & 15 m 5 s & 20.21 & 22.24 \\ Resin100\% & 14 m 59 s & 28.8 & 31.68 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Time and material consumption for each variation.  
These findings clearly demonstrate that the choice of build orientation has a significant impact on the deformation that can be achieved. The data also show that a 75\({}^{\circ}\) orientation is optimal, yielding up to a 20% increase compared with the reference.  
Figure 6 presents the measurement results obtained for the test specimens produced with different infill configurations.  
The trends observed here differ from the earlier series. In every case, increasing the infill percentage enhanced the material's deformation capacity. Interestingly, 90% infill  
Figure 5: Absolute average (Abs. avg.) displacement at different orientations.  
Figure 6: Absolute average (Abs. avg.) displacement at different infill percentages.  
The results confirm the conclusion--also reported in the literature (a citation is needed here)--that Cross3D infill reduces the brittleness of printed parts. The figure clearly shows that the denser, almost solid infill \"snapped out\" of the frame, whereas the sparser infill sheared off more gradually. Although the displacement--i.e., the strain attainable before failure--was nearly the same in both cases, the propensity for brittle fracture decreased. Consequently, whenever a failing component must not shatter into fragments, adjusting the infill percentage is advisable.  
The final chart (Figure 9) displays displacement evaluation data from a cross-section taken along the longer side of the specimens. Here, too, no substantial differences are observed; the curves follow a similar course. Specimens with higher infill generally rise more gently, while those with 50-60% infill climb more steeply, corroborating the trends seen in attainable strain.