5. 3D Scanning and printing¶
Tasks¶
Group Assignment: * Evaluate and test the design limitations and rules for your 3D printer(s).
Individual Assignment: * Create a 3D model and print a small object (a few cm³, constrained by printer time) that is impossible to manufacture using subtractive methods. * 3D scan an object (with the option to 3D print it).
Group Assignment¶
Here is a the link to our group wedsite. My assignment was to test different infills on the 3d printer.
Infill Test - Zaina G.¶
For our infill test, we first started by creating three 1x1x1 inch cubes. We ran the print 3 times and stopped each print at 25%. On the first one we used a 15% infill, on the second we used a 30% infill, and then on the third we used a 60 percent infill.
15%¶
30%¶
60%¶
Conclusion: Overall, we observed that higher infill percentages resulted in longer print times but also increased strength. While 15% infill was the fastest to print, it was much weaker than the others. On the other hand, 60% infill provided the greatest strength but required much more time. Based on our results, the optimal balance between print time and strength appeared to be in the 15%-30% range.
3D Design¶
For my 3D design, I used Fusion. I began by creating a 5x5x5-inch cube as the base. On each face of the cube, I sketched a 3.75-inch circle and then extruded it negatively to hollow it out.
In the middle of the square, I added a sphere with a 4-inch diameter, making it slightly larger than the circles in the square so it wouldn’t fall through. I also used the fillet tool on each edge of the square to give it a smoother look.
After I created the sphere, I added six 2.5 inch cirlces on the sphere in the middle. Then once it was hollowed, I added an offset plane and created a floating cube in the middle of the sphere.
I then exported it into bambu studio and printed it. When I initially printed my design, I noticed that the edges of the square were weak and broke easily. To address this, I decided to remove the square entirely and use only the circle, as it still met the requirements for this week because the square is still fully enclosed in the sphere.
Here’s My final 3D printed model.
Scanning¶
For this task, I used the app Qlone. The app supports both iOS and Android and uses AR technology for scanning. The process requires printing a special mat, which helps the app recognize object dimensions accurately. Once I placed my object on the mat, I scanned it by slowly circling around it with my phone. For reference, This is was the orginal lip balm looked like:
These are my results using clone:
I wasn’t satisfied with the initial results, so I decided to use my AirPods case instead. Here are my final results:
Conclusion: While Qlone is a useful 3D scanning app, it does have some faults. One major drawback is its dependency on the printed mat, which can be inconvenient and limits the scanning area. Another limitation I found was that simpler objects tend to produce the best results.
Week 5 Reflection¶
This week, I explored 3D scanning and printing and focused on testing design limitations, infill patterns, and creating 3D models.
For the group assignment, I tested different infill percentages. The results showed that while higher infill increases strength, it also significantly extends print time. A balance between 15% and 30% infill provided a good compromise between strength and efficiency.
For my individual 3D design, I created a hollow cube with a sphere inside and an internal floating cube. My first print had weak edges, leading me to refine the design by removing the cube and using only the sphere to maintain the structure while meeting the requirements.
In 3D scanning, I used Qlone to scan objects. My first attempt with a lip balm resulted in poor quality, so I switched to an AirPods case, which had better results. I found that Qlone’s dependancy on a printed mat was a limitation, and simpler objects scanned more effectively.