Week 5 - 3D Scanning and Printing #
Hero Shot: #
TL;DR #
This week, I explored both 3D scanning and 3D printing. I used the Shining3D Einstar with Shining3D Exstar to scan a water bottle after completing a multi-step calibration process. Although scanning required patience and capturing the object from many angles, the results were accurate. For 3D printing, I created a hinged box and a sphere enclosed inside a cube structure. These designs demonstrate the advantages of additive manufacturing, as both include internal geometries that cannot be produced using subtractive methods.
Group Assignment #
Link to this week’s group assignment
3D Scanning Process #
For 3D scanning, I used the Shining3D Einstar along with the Shining3D Exstar software. I used wired connection.
Calibration #
Before scanning, I calibrated the 3D scanner using:
- A dotted calibration sheet
- A blank white sheet
The calibration process required scanning these sheets from different angles and distances to ensure accuracy. The software guides thoroughly through the calibration so it was an easy process to complete.
Scanning #
I created a new project with the following settings:
- Scan Mode: Object
- Object Size: Small
- Alignment Mode: Features
- Resolution: Medium
- Texture Scan: Enabled
I decided to scan my water bottle. The process required moving around the object to capture it from all angles.
Although the process was time-consuming and required careful positioning, the scanner performed well and successfully captured the geometry of the object.
3D Printing #
During this week, I learned how different parameters affect print quality and success. Adjusting settings such as layer height, infill, and print speed significantly impacts both the strength and surface finish of prints.
I also observed the importance of:
- Proper bed adhesion to prevent warping
- Support structures for overhangs
- Tolerances when designing moving parts
Testing helped me understand the limitations of additive manufacturing, especially when dealing with small clearances and complex geometries.
Hinged Box #
I followed a tutorial to create a hinged box, which includes moving parts printed in place.
The following section analysis shows the hinge mechanism and its internal moving parts.
After completing the 3D design, I did the slicing using the Bambu Studio software. I used the default settings for infill, which is 15%.
Additive manufacturing allows the hinge to be printed as a single functional object, eliminating the need for assembly.
The following video shows the print-in-place hinged box.
This design cannot be easily made using subtractive manufacturing because:
- The hinge mechanism is fully enclosed during printing
- Internal moving parts would require assembly or impossible tool access
- Traditional machining cannot create internal joints without splitting the object
Encapsulated Sphere in a Cage #
As another challenge, I designed a floating sphere trapped inside a cube-shaped, prison-like structure.
During the printing process, I could observe how the floating sphere was processed through additive manufacturing.
The following video show the sphere encapsulated in a cage.
This design cannot be easily made using subtractive manufacturing because:
- The inner sphere is fully enclosed within the outer structure
- There is no direct tool path to create the sphere once the cage is formed
- Subtractive methods cannot produce floating internal geometries without cutting the outer structure
3D printing enables this by building the object layer by layer, allowing internal features to exist without assembly.
Files:
