5. 3D Scanning and Printing

This week devoted to 3D printing was especially exciting for me, because 3D printing gives me the opportunity to create objects that will be difficult to create using the usual subtractive method for me.

Group Assignment

Since the new 3D printers arrived in our lab, we decided to compare them to the older models. We conducted the same tests on each printer and then compared the results.

Our laboratory is equipped with these 3D printers.

Feature	Creality Ender 3	Creality Ender 3 Pro	Creality Ender 3 V2
Image
Mechanics & Frame Type	Cartesian, Open-frame	Cartesian, Open-frame	Cartesian, Open-frame
Print Volume (mm)	220×220×250	220×220×250	220×220×250
Extruder Type	Bowden	Bowden	Bowden
Heated Chamber	No	No	No
Max Nozzle Temp (°C)	255	255	255
Max Bed Temp (°C)	110	110	110
Auto-leveling	No	No	No
Firmware	Marlin	Marlin	Marlin

Feature	Creality CR-30	Elegoo Neptune 4 Max	Anycubic Mega X	Qidi Q1 Pro
Image
Mechanics & Frame Type	Belt Printer, Open-frame	Cartesian, Open-frame	Cartesian, Open-frame	CoreXY, Enclosed
Print Volume (mm)	200×170×∞	420×420×480	300×300×305	245×245×245
Extruder Type	Direct Drive	Direct Drive	Bowden	Dual drive Extruder
Heated Chamber	No	No	No	Yes (Max 60°C)
Max Nozzle Temp (°C)	240	300	260	350
Max Bed Temp (°C)	100	85	90	120
Auto-leveling	No	Yes	No	Yes
Firmware	Marlin	Klipper	Marlin	Klipper
Special Features	Infinite Z-axis printing	Large-format, high-speed	Large-format	High-speed, Heated chamber

For a group assignment, I was working with printers Creality Ender 3 and Creality Ender 3 Pro, I have conducted several tests using PET-G and PLA filaments. But first, I needed to download and install the Orca slicer software. After installing the program, I added the printers that I intend to use in the future.

Since these printers do not have automatic bed leveling, I adjusted them using ordinary paper.

Tests

Temperature Tower Test Maximum Volumetric Speed Test Tolerance Test Vertical Fine Artifacts

PLA The testing was conducted on an Ender 3 printer using PLA material. During the printing process, we encountered some issues with the hotend, as wavy defects appeared between objects, particularly on overhangs. However, despite these issues, the overall print quality was still at a satisfactory level.

Here is a sequence of actions I performed:

The optimal results were obtained when printing the bridges at temperatures up to 200 degrees Celsius. In general, we were able to successfully print the tower within the temperature range of 190 to 220 degrees Celsius.

PET-G

I used a Creality Ender 3 to print with PET-G filament. The PET-G test was short, in the range of 230–240°C, since we already had a rough idea of the right temperature. The usual PET-G retraction issues appeared during printing, but the best quality was achieved at 235°C.

For the test in Orca Slicer, the Volumetric Flow Rate (VFA) limitation was disabled to determine the maximum extrusion capacity of the extruder and hotend. Normally, slicers impose flow restrictions, but without this limitation, we can check how fast the printer can feed filament without under-extrusion or overheating. Since different materials have different flow characteristics, the test should be conducted separately for each filament, adjusting the VFA parameters in its settings.

PLA

we tested PLA on the Ender 3 Pro. We used the same approach as in previous tests: parameters for PLA were set in Orca Slicer, and then we conducted a test for maximum volumetric speed.

The result was more satisfactory, although the differences from the previous test were minor. This time, based on caliper measurements, we identified the printed section with the most consistent height. Calculations showed that the optimal flow rate was approximately 11 mm³/s.

PET-G

We tested PLA on the Ender 3 Pro, using the same approach as in previous test. We set the PLA parameters in Orca Slicer and then conducted a test for maximum volumetric speed.

For clarity, we created this image to show how much the printer has printed, and we made an equation to calculate how many mm³/s the printer printed acceptably. start + (height-measured * step)

The result is not very satisfying because, despite the fact that the filament settings specified 10 mm³/s, the actual result was 9 mm³/s.

Printer	Max Flow	Optimal Flow
Qidi Q1 Pro	20+ mm³/s	20 mm³/s
Neptune 4 Max + PLA	15 mm³/s	12 mm³/s
Neptune 4 Max + PETG	15 mm³/s	12 mm³/s
Ender 3 V2 + PETG	9 mm³/s	7 mm³/s
Ender 3 Pro + PLA	12 mm³/s	10 mm³/s

The purpose of this tolerance test is to assess the dimensional accuracy of both the printer and the filament. The model consists of a base with six hexagonal holes, each having a different tolerance: 0.0 mm, 0.05 mm, 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, 0.3 mm, and 0.4 mm. The size of each hexagon is 6 mm.

PLA

Ender 3 Pro — The printer showed good results with a tolerance of 0.15 mm. The hexagon fit with slight effort up to 0.1 mm. From 0.05 mm to 0 mm, the hexagon fit with difficulty but still passed.

PET-G

Ender 3 V2 — The printer showed a tolerance of 0.15 mm. The hexagon fit freely up to 0.1 mm. From 0.1 mm onwards, it only fit with difficulty, and at 0 mm, the hexagon didn’t fit at all.

The Vertical Fine Artifacts test in OrcaSlicer helps determine the optimal print speed by identifying the speeds at which defects like vibrations and artifacts appear. We print a speed tower, with each section printed at a different speed, helping us find the best balance between print quality and efficiency.

PLA

The maximum speed was 110 mm/s at the 10th mark. However, starting from the 7th mark (80 mm/s), extrusion problems appear at the corners. In the photo, from the 4th to the 7th mark, visible ripples from the belts can be seen, and some rippling is also visible at the 1st mark.

Speed = 20 mm/s + (10 mm/s × (4 - 1)) = 50 mm/s

Therefore, on this printer, quality results can be achieved at speeds ranging from 20 to 50 mm/s, while higher speeds introduce artifacts that reduce print quality.

PET-G

In the calibration menu, there is a VFA test that disables speed limits. Three parameters are set: initial speed, final speed, and the step by which the speed increases. This test helps determine how speed affects quality and adjusts the printer for optimal settings.

On the model, you can see the speed values displayed in different colors, or rather, the transition numbers can be seen at the top right corner.

After printing, we analyzed the results using the markings on the model as reference points. The photo shows that after the 7th marking, the print quality worsened, indicating the maximum speed limit.

The following equation was used to calculate the speed:

Speed at mark n = initial speed + (step × (n - 1))

For mark 7, the speed is calculated as follows:

Speed = 20 mm/s + (10 mm/s × (7 - 1))

Speed = 20 mm/s + (10 × 6)

Speed = 20 mm/s + 60 mm/s

Speed = 80 mm/s

Thus, the speed at mark 7 was 80 mm/s. We determined that on the Ender 3 V2 with PET-G, the maximum speed is 80 mm/s. This test was aimed at identifying speed ranges where artifacts such as ripples and belt marks do not appear, but it is impossible to completely eliminate these artifacts at such low speeds.

Printer	Max Speed	Speed Range (High Quality)	Artifacts (Belts & Motors)
Qidi Q1 Pro + PLA	600 mm/s	150-600 mm/s	70-150 mm/s
Neptune 4 Max + PLA	450 mm/s	90-450 mm/s	50-90 mm/s
Neptune 4 Max + PETG	450 mm/s	165-300 mm/s	40-115 mm/s
Ender 3 V2 + PETG	80 mm/s	20-30 mm/s	30-80 mm/s
Ender 3 Pro + PLA	110 mm/s	20-50 mm/s	50-80 mm/s

Conclusion

During the testing of two types of filaments, the following results were obtained:

• PLA: The optimal printing temperature for this material was 200°C. The maximum printing speed was limited to 50 mm/s, at which the quality remained good. The print accuracy was within a tolerance of 0.15 mm. This filament showed stable results without significant defects under standard conditions.

• PET-G: The optimal printing temperature was 235°C. For this material, the maximum printing speed was 80 mm/s, but speeds higher than 50 mm/s caused extrusion problems and visible artifacts, such as ripples from the belts. To achieve quality results, speeds should be kept within 50 mm/s.

These tests helped identify the optimal settings for each filament type and allowed for the printer to be calibrated for the best print quality.

Individual assignment

3D Printing

Rotating Concentric Rings

For the task “Design and 3D print an object that could not be easily made subtractively”, I decided to create a system of rotating concentric rings, аnd I decided to design it in Rhino.

To start, I created a sphere with a diameter of 40 millimeters using the Sphere tool. Then I used Offset Surface to create the outer rings. I tested three gap options between the rings: 0.1 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.7 mm.

The first trial with a 0.7 mm gap turned out to be too large — the rings had significant play. So, I decided to try smaller gaps to find the minimum one that would allow the rings to rotate freely without excessive friction.

Next, I tested a 0.1 mm gap, but the parts stuck together during printing. My attempt to separate them was unsuccessful, and the model broke.

After that, I tried a 0.25 mm gap, and it turned out to be optimal — the rings rotated freely without excess play or sticking.

Then, I used the Split tool to separate the central fragments of all the spheres, which allowed me to create surfaces with a height of 20 mm.

I used the Surface from Planar Curves tool to combine the resulting flat sections. This process allowed me to create the rings by converting the flat curves into smooth, continuous surfaces, ensuring the correct geometry and structural integrity of each ring.

Then, I combined all the parts using the Join tool to create a single structure. Then, to complete the model, I used the Cap Planar Holes tool to close all open surfaces and ensure the integrity of the shapes, giving them a finished appearance.

After the model was completed, I exported it in STL format and opened it in Orca slicer. In the software, I configured all the necessary printing parameters, such as material type, infill density, print speed, and nozzle temperature. After completing the setup, I exported the G-code file, ready for printing on the 3D printer.

And here is the final result. After all the stages of design, setup, and printing, the model was successfully completed. Each step, starting from the creation and export to STL format, and ending with the print settings in slicer, was crucial for achieving the desired outcome.

Liquid Reservoir for a Modular Hydroponic System

I decided to print a liquid reservoir for a modular hydroponic system as part of my final project. This reservoir plays a crucial role in the system by supplying the nutrient solution to the plants.

Since I already had preliminary sketches and design drafts, the modeling process took less time. This allowed me to quickly move on to 3D modeling, optimizing the shape, and preparing the model for printing. At this stage, I focused on selecting the appropriate parameters, such as the reservoir’s volume, wall thickness, and connection method with other system modules.

Then, using the Revolve tool, I revolved the sections around the central axis. This allowed me to create a 3D solid model of the reservoir based on the previously drawn sections.

Switching to another layer for convenience, I double-clicked on it and began drawing the handle of the future reservoir in space. To ensure ease of use and the possibility of combining several such reservoirs, I set an angle of 45 degrees. This angle was chosen considering that it would allow several reservoirs to be positioned next to each other efficiently, without creating obstacles for their use in a modular system.

I use the Sweep 2 Rails tool to create a 3D shape by sweeping a section between two rail curves. For this, I select two curves and one or more sections, and the tool “pulls” the section along these curves.

This is very convenient for creating complex and smooth shapes, such as pipes or frame structures.

I specifically created only half of the handle so that, after completing the process, I could use the Mirror tool to duplicate it symmetrically. This approach significantly accelerated the modeling process and ensured the symmetry and accuracy of the handle’s shape without the need to manually repeat all the steps, helping to save time during model creation.

I merged all the parts into one using the Boolean Union tool. It is important to ensure that the parts being merged form a closed solid polysurface, otherwise, the tool will not work correctly and may fail to perform the union operation properly.

All that was left was to export the model and continue working in the slicer.

I used PLA plastic and decided to print the model without supports, as the shape of the handle allowed for it. Thanks to the correct angle and geometry, the model did not require additional support structures. This not only simplified the printing process but also resulted in a cleaner and higher-quality model without any marks from supports.

The printing process on the QIDI Q1 Pro printer using the built-in time-lapse.

After three and a half hours of printing, I obtained the following result.

Conclusion

This week, I worked with the Creality Ender 3 and Ender 3 Pro 3D printers, testing PLA and PET-G filaments. I have mastered the setup of the Orca slicer and conducted various tests to optimize the print settings for the best possible quality. I also completed individual assignments, including designing and creating a model of a liquid tank, which became an important part of my final project. This allowed me to delve deeper into the modeling and 3D printing process, as well as optimize the results for future work.Using 3D printing opens up many possibilities, especially when prototyping, allowing you to make shapes that are difficult to obtain using other production methods. However, when designing for 3D printing, it is important to take into account the unique features and limitations of this process. Special approaches are needed to avoid problems such as deformations or difficulties with supporting structures, which require fine-tuning the model and printing parameters to achieve the best results. take it on the basis of this

3D Scanning

Comparison of LiDAR and Scaniverse for 3D Scanning

During my 3D scanning tests using a phone, I used two applications: LiDAR and Scaniverse. Both tools allow for creating digital models of objects, but they differ in the quality of the results.

LiDAR

LiDAR provides more accurate geometry and model detail by utilizing the built-in depth sensor. It is well-suited for scanning complex shapes and delivers high-quality 3D models, making it ideal for further processing in CAD programs and 3D printing.

Scaniverse

On the other hand, Scaniverse creates models with faster texture processing, but their quality depends on the processing speed. If the scanning process is too fast, the object’s shape suffers, and the mesh may contain many artifacts.

Additionally, the quality of textures heavily depends on lighting conditions and camera stability. This app can be useful if the priority is a photorealistic appearance of the object.

Therefore, the choice between LiDAR and Scaniverse depends on the tasks at hand: LiDAR is better for creating precise 3D models with accurate geometry, while Scaniverse is better for working with visually high-quality textures.

Conclusion

The use of 3D scanning in combination with 3D printing significantly accelerates the process of creating and refining prototypes. Scanning allows for the rapid digitization of physical objects, making it possible to modify them in digital form and adapt them to specific needs. After processing the model in CAD software, it can be immediately printed, reducing development time and simplifying testing.

This method is particularly useful for reverse engineering when it is necessary to recreate an outdated or damaged part without existing drawings. It also enables the adaptation of existing shapes to new requirements, such as improving the ergonomics or functionality of a product.

Source Fles

3D Models

G-code

3D Scanning