Week05. 3D Scanning and printing

The image of my individual work is presented below.

Group assignment

During the group assignment, our goal was to evaluate and compare the capabilities of the 3D printers available in the lab. Using the same models, we tested each machine to observe print quality, dimensional accuracy, surface finish, and overall stability.

Below is the link to our group project. Here you can review all of our completed works.

Group Assignment Link

The experiments were carried out using two different materials: PLA and PETG. I worked with PLA, while Gevorg used PETG, which allowed us to compare not only the performance of the printers but also the behavior of the materials under the same conditions.

We focused on identifying the strengths and limitations of each printer by analyzing temperature stability, layer adhesion, extrusion consistency, and print speed. Using identical files and controlled parameters enabled a fair comparison and provided a clearer understanding of each machine’s performance.

We worked with the Prusa MK4S and Bambu Lab X1 Carbon 3D printers, using identical test models on both machines to compare their performance and print quality.

• Prusa MK4S – FDM printer with a medium build volume of 250×210×210 mm, single extruder, and heated bed. Supports PLA, PETG, ASA, TPU, and some nylon materials.

• Bambu Lab X1 Carbon – FDM printer with a build volume of 220×220×250 mm, single extruder (up to 4 with AMS), heated bed, supports PLA, PETG, ABS, ASA, PC, TPU, and high-temperature materials. Designed for fast, versatile printing.

Feature	Prusa MK4S	Bambu Lab X1 Carbon
Image
Mechanics & Frame Type	Cartesian, open-frame	CoreXY, enclosed frame
Print Volume (mm)	250×210×220	256×256×256
Extruder Type	Single direct drive (Nextruder)	Single all-metal hotend
Heated Chamber	No	No
Max Nozzle Temp (°C)	290	300
Max Bed Temp (°C)	120	110–120
Auto-Leveling	Yes	Yes (dual + lidar)
Supported Materials	PLA, PETG, Flex, PVA, PC, PP, CPE, PVB	PLA, PETG, TPU, ABS, ASA, PC, PA, specialty composites
Firmware / Control	Prusa firmware	Bambu Studio
Special Features	Reliable all-purpose printer	Fast, advanced sensors & AMS-ready

Testing

As part of the group assignment for the 3D printing week, Gevorg and I decided to test the printers available in our lab in order to evaluate their capabilities, characteristics, and print quality.

We began with the preparation phase. For model slicing, we used the OrcaSlicer software, where we first configured the temperature tower test. This test allowed us to examine the effect of different temperatures on material melting, layer adhesion, and surface quality.

During printing, we used PLA and PETG materials with the same test models to obtain comparable results. The experiments included:

evaluating temperature stability,

assessing the performance of the extruder and print bed,

checking tolerances and dimensional accuracy,

analyzing surface quality at different printing speeds.

This process enabled us to gain a comparative and more objective understanding of each printer’s performance, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and observe how different machines respond to the same materials and parameters.

Slicer

For preparing 3D models and calibrating the printers in our project, we could have used various slicers, such as PrusaSlicer, but we chose Orca Slicer. This slicer provides fast and convenient tools for configuring print parameters, allowing precise control over layer height, infill, print speed, temperature, and other critical settings.

Orca Slicer stands out for its simplicity in preparing models and its precise adjustment capabilities. It enables quick verification of parameters, easy modification, and immediate visualization of changes without the need for repeated trial prints. This efficiency is especially important for our project, where both time and workflow optimization are key factors.

Additionally, Orca Slicer offers clear and intuitive controls, ensuring a well-managed and consistent printing process that helps achieve high-quality results. While other slicers are also powerful, Orca Slicer provided the best combination of speed, accuracy, and simplicity, making it particularly suitable for our project’s requirements.

Temperature Tower

Before moving on to the testing phase, the tasks were divided between us. I chose to work with PLA filament, while Gevorg worked with PETG, which allowed us to comparatively analyze the printing behavior and optimal parameters of different materials.

In OrcaSlicer, to open this test I went to Calibration → Temperature, where a settings window appeared. There, I selected the filament type — PLA, and set the nozzle temperature range as follows:

starting temperature: 240 °C,

final temperature: 190 °C,

temperature step: 5 °C.

After generating the Temp Tower, the model was automatically placed on the print bed. Each section of the model is printed at a different temperature.

With this test, it is possible to evaluate the results of various temperatures in a single print and select the option that provides the best surface quality, layer adhesion, and overall print performance.

The slicer software we used includes several calibration tools, the first of which was the Temperature Tower test. The purpose of this test is to determine the optimal nozzle temperature for a given filament. During printing, each section of the tower is produced at a different temperature, enabling visual and structural evaluation to identify the temperature that provides the best overall printing results.

When we change the Line Type parameter in the program and select Temperature, the model is displayed as a multicolored tower, with colors gradually transitioning from cool tones to warm tones. On the right side of the screen, a color scale is shown, indicating the temperature corresponding to each color.

This is the result of the temperature tower test.

Each section of the model was printed at a different temperature, ranging from 190°C to 240°C. By comparing the quality of each segment — such as surface finish, layer adhesion, stringing, and overall sharpness — we can determine the optimal printing temperature for this filament.

In the temperature tower test (190°C–240°C), the best print quality was achieved around 210°C–215°C.

At lower temperatures (190°C–200°C), the layers appear slightly under-extruded and layer adhesion is weaker. At higher temperatures (230°C–240°C), there are visible signs of stringing and slight surface imperfections due to overheating.

The sections printed at 210°C–215°C show the cleanest surface finish, better layer bonding, and minimal stringing. Therefore, this temperature range can be considered optimal for this filament.

This experiment was an important step, as it helped me better understand the material’s behavior at different temperatures.

Max Flow Rate Test

After the Temperature Tower test, the next step was to evaluate the maximum flow rate (Max Flow Rate). The purpose of this test was to determine the highest volumetric flow (mm³/s) that the printer can sustain with PLA filament without compromising print quality. The test was performed using two different PLA colors:

• Red PLA

• Vanilla White PLA

Procedure

In Orca Slicer, I selected the Max Flow Rate calibration section. The software automatically suggests a default speed of 200 mm/s,

but this value is only a general recommendation and does not account for the specific printer, nozzle, or filament properties. The slicer generated a model in which extrusion demand gradually increased throughout the print. During printing, the following were monitored:

• surface consistency

• layer adhesion

• signs of under-extrusion

• gaps between lines

• structural deviations

For clarity, we created an image that shows how much of the model was printed successfully. The maximum acceptable flow rate was calculated using the following formula:

Flow = start + (measured height × step)

Observations

At lower flow rates, extrusion was stable, walls were solid, and surface quality was clean for both filaments. However, after the 8th line, differences became noticeable:

• Red PLA — small gaps appeared in the top layers, indicating the flow limit had been exceeded.

• Vanilla White PLA — only slight deviations in line straightness appeared, without gaps or adhesion issues.

The calculated maximum flow rate was determined as:

5+(0.5×8)=9 mm3/s

where:

• 5 mm³/s is the starting flow rate

• 0.5 mm³/s is the increment per step

• 8 is the number of steps completed before quality degradation appeared

Although the software suggested a default value of 200, our calculations showed that the correct maximum flow rate is 9 mm³/s. Therefore, the slicer setting was adjusted to 9, as this proved to be the optimal value for this specific material.

Conclusion

The Max Flow Rate test identified the real-world stable extrusion limits for this printer and PLA materials:

• 9 mm³/s — stable upper limit

• higher values — noticeable quality loss

• different PLA colors behave differently under identical conditions

These findings are important for printing faster while maintaining quality, improving print reliability, and optimizing future print parameters.

Overhang Test

In addition, Gevorg and I conducted an overhang test to evaluate printing performance. I performed the test using PLA material on the Prusa MK4S printer, while Gevorg carried out the same test using PLA on the Bambu Lab X1 Carbon printer. This experiment allowed us to compare how different printers handle overhang angles and observe differences in print quality.

In the overhang test: - The first stepped section printed well up to 45°. The second stepped section printed well up to 60° without noticeable sagging or defects. This indicates better overhang performance in the second stepped section.

• In the bridging test, the measured lengths were 10.41 mm, 20.49 mm, and 30.54 mm instead of the designed 10 mm, 20 mm, and 30 mm. This shows a slight positive deviation, which increased as the bridge length increased.

• For the circular holes, the designed diameters were 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm, but the printed results were 3.88, 5.88, 7.88, and 9.88 mm. This shows that the printer has an undersize deviation of approximately 0.12 mm in diameter. To achieve accurate dimensions, about +0.1 mm compensation should be added in the model.

• The bridging test results are as follows:

At 2 mm, the measured value was 4.32 mm.

At 5 mm, it was 7.03 mm.

At 10 mm, it was 12.30 mm.

At 15 mm, it was 17.17 mm.

At 20 mm, it was 22.44 mm.

At 25 mm, it was 25.09 mm.

The results show that as the bridge length increases, the deviation generally increases, likely due to sagging and material stretching.

• During the hole test, the designed diameters were 4 mm, 6 mm, and 8 mm, while the measured results were 3.77 mm, 5.88 mm, and 8.99 mm, respectively. The results show a slight undersize deviation for the 4 mm and 6 mm holes, and a small oversize deviation for the 8 mm hole.

• During the slot (clearance) test, the designed widths were 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm, while the measured results were 2.77 mm, 3.23 mm, and 4.7 mm, respectively. The results show a positive deviation (oversize), meaning the printed slots are larger than the designed dimensions. This deviation may be caused by material expansion, flow settings, or measurement factors.

Individual Assignment

The goal of this week’s individual assignment was to design, document, and 3D print an object that could not be manufactured using subtractive methods. The object had to be small (a few cubic centimeters in volume) to meet printer time constraints, and the design needed to include geometric or structural features (such as internal cavities, enclosed forms, or interlocked parts) that cannot be produced by removing material. The assignment covered the full workflow from concept to finished print: - designing the model in a CAD environment, - exporting the STL file, - configuring print settings in a slicer, - performing the 3D print, - and evaluating and documenting the result.

As part of the assignment, I designed several small-scale 3D models that include enclosed internal geometric elements and cannot be produced through subtractive manufacturing. The modeling process was carried out in FreeCAD, using basic solid and geometric tools. During the design process, I created several variations, starting from simple primitive shapes and gradually modifying their structure, openings, and outer geometry. This iterative approach resulted in multiple design versions with different structural solutions, each incorporating an internal sphere element.

The first model is a cube-shaped structure with geometric openings on all sides and a sphere placed inside. The sphere is enclosed within the structure and cannot be removed without breaking it, meaning it cannot be fabricated using material-removal techniques such as milling or CNC machining. A structure like this can only be produced through additive manufacturing, where it is built layer by layer.

The second model consists of a cylindrical lattice structure formed by star-shaped outer walls, also containing an internal sphere. The outer shell is composed of repeating symmetrical elements that create a closed enclosure while still allowing visibility of the inner object. This design belongs to the category of print-in-place models, since the internal and external parts are printed simultaneously without requiring assembly afterward.

After preparing the STL file, I imported it into the Orca Slicer environment. In the slicer, I first selected the appropriate printer profile and material settings, then performed the slicing process. The software generated a G-code file containing all the motion and extrusion instructions required by the printer. The resulting G-code was transferred to the 3D printer, and the printing process was started. After completion, I evaluated the printed models visually and structurally, checking the free movement of the internal sphere, the integrity of the outer walls, and the quality of the printed layers.

3D scan and print

During this week’s assignment, I worked on 3D scanning. For this purpose, I explored the Scaniverse and Kiri applications to understand their features and workflows. After testing both, I found Kiri more convenient and easier to use, so I continued my work with it.

Using Kiri, I scanned a plaster object and generated its digital 3D model. During the scanning process, I made sure to capture the object from multiple angles to ensure a more complete and detailed result. Afterward, I exported the model in a suitable 3D file format for further processing and use.

After exporting the scanned model, I imported the resulting OBJ file into Blender for inspection and refinement. In Blender, I examined the mesh structure and performed several cleanup operations to make the model more suitable for 3D printing. I removed unnecessary fragments and corrected some surface irregularities, resulting in a cleaner and technically prepared model.

Next, I imported the cleaned model into Orca Slicer, where I prepared it for printing by selecting the appropriate print settings. After slicing, I printed the file using PETG material on a Prusa MK4S 3D printer.

The final printed result turned out quite well, with the overall shape and details accurately reproduced, confirming that the scanning, cleanup, and printing workflow was successful.

Files

Individual work freecad

Individual work freecad

Scan Stl