3D Scanning and Printing - Group Assignment

Group Assignment — Distributed Design Rule Testing (Fab Itinerante)

The group assignment for this week consisted of testing and characterizing the design rules of different FDM 3D printers. Rather than working in a single shared laboratory, we developed this assignment under a distributed fabrication model as part of the Fab Itinerante initiative.

Each member carried out the tests in their respective fabrication environment, located in different regions of Peru. This decentralized approach reflects the core philosophy of the Fab Lab network: local production combined with shared digital collaboration and standardized documentation.

Distributed Fabrication Context

The printers were tested in the following locations:

• Carmen — Fab Lab Koajika Satipo, Satipo (Amazonía del Perú)
• David — Fab Lab Museo de Arqueología, Pueblo Libre (Lima)
• Esteban — Personal workshop (home-based fabrication environment)
• Jean Franco — Fab Lab UNI
• Cindy — Independent Fab Lab workspace
• Rocío — Fab Lab ESAN

Because of this distributed structure, we did not gather physically in a single Fab Lab. Instead, we coordinated virtually to define which test each member would conduct, ensuring that all critical fabrication variables were evaluated across the group.

Virtual coordination session — defining test distribution and documentation strategy.

Test Distribution Strategy

To ensure meaningful comparison, we divided the design rule tests among participants. Each person focused on specific stress conditions that reveal mechanical, thermal, or dimensional limits of FDM fabrication:

• Carmen: Calibration cube (X/Y/Z verification) and structural stress kit testing.
• David: Overhang testing (normal vs tree supports) and clearance evaluation.
• Esteban: Anisotropy test, surface finish evaluation, and angle performance testing.
• Jean Franco: Retraction test and temperature calibration analysis.
• Cindy: Overhang and general support behavior evaluation.
• Rocío: Overhang, angle test, tolerance verification, and infill density comparison.

By distributing the experiments, we generated a broader dataset that reflects how different printer architectures, extrusion systems, slicer workflows, and environmental conditions influence fabrication outcomes.

Why This Matters

Design rule testing transforms fabrication from a trial-and-error process into an evidence-based design strategy. Understanding overhang limits, minimum tolerances, cooling efficiency, and support behavior allows us to design geometries that respect the real constraints of additive manufacturing. This week was not about printing objects — it was about understanding the fabrication logic behind each machine.

Technical Comparison of 3D Printers

To better understand fabrication behavior across different environments, we compared the mechanical architecture, extrusion systems, calibration methods, and slicer workflows of each printer involved in the distributed testing.

This comparison moves beyond theoretical manufacturer specifications and focuses on fabrication-relevant parameters that directly affect design rule testing.

Visual Documentation of the Printers

Artillery Genius Pro — Fab Lab Koajika Satipo, Satipo.

Creality K1 SE — Fab Lab Museo de Arqueología, Lima.

Bambu Lab A1 — Esteban’s personal workshop.

Prusa XL — Fab Lab UNI.

Bestgee T300S Pro — Cindy’s Fab Lab workspace.

Bambu Lab A1 — Fab Lab ESAN.

Comparative Observations

CoreXY systems (Creality K1 SE and Prusa XL) demonstrate higher acceleration and speed performance due to reduced moving mass on the X/Y plane. Cartesian systems, while mechanically simpler, require greater attention to frame rigidity and vibration control.

Automatic calibration systems (Bambu Lab A1 series) significantly reduce setup time and improve first-layer reliability, whereas manual leveling systems require deeper mechanical understanding but allow hands-on tuning.

3D Printer Analysis – Artillery Genius Pro

Carmen Elena Gutierrez Apolinario

The Artillery Genius Pro is an FDM 3D printer renowned for its stability, precision, and ease of use, making it ideal for both beginners and advanced users. It features a build volume of 220 mm x 220 mm x 250 mm, allowing for the production of medium-sized parts with a good level of detail. Its printing speed can be adjusted between 60 mm/s and 150 mm/s, depending on the print quality and material used.

It is equipped with a direct drive extruder with a 0.4 mm nozzle, which facilitates the printing of flexible materials and improves filament flow control. Its print resolution is 0.05 mm on the X and Y axes, and 0.1 mm on the Z axis, enabling precise and defined finishes. Regarding energy consumption, it can reach a maximum of 500 W when the heated bed is on.

To prepare the models before printing, Ultimaker Cura 5.5.0 slicing software was used, which allows configuring parameters such as temperature, speed, infill, supports, and layer height, thus optimizing the final print quality.

Compatible Materials

• PLA (Polylactic Acid): An easy-to-print material, ideal for beginners and rapid prototyping.
• ABS: More resistant and durable, although it requires better temperature control to avoid warping.
• PETG: Combines mechanical strength and some flexibility, making it suitable for functional parts.
• TPU (Flexible Filament): Thanks to the direct drive extruder, it can be printed more easily compared to Bowden systems.
• Wood-Look Filaments (PLA with Wood Particles): Offer a decorative finish similar to natural wood.
• PVA and HIPS: Special materials mainly used as soluble supports in complex prints.

Printing Workflow – Artillery Genius Pro

Software Setup

• Download Ultimaker Cura
• Install and open software
• Add custom printer (Artillery Genius Pro)

Machine Parameters

• 220 x 220 x 250 mm
• Nozzle: 0.4 mm
• Filament: 1.75 mm

Bed Leveling

• Preheat bed
• Use paper method
• Adjust screws

Printing Parameters (PLA)

• Nozzle: 200°C
• Bed: 55–60°C
• Layer height: 0.2 mm
• Speed: 50–60 mm/s

Process

• Import STL
• Slice
• Export G-code
• Print

3D Printing Tests – Artillery Genius Pro

Test without Supports

Tests without supports allowed verification of calibration and overhang behavior. The machine performed well, with minor imperfections.

Test with Supports

Using supports improved stability and finish in critical areas. Supports were easy to remove and improved print quality.

3D Printer Analysis – Creality K1 SE

David Ávila Pimentel

Print Volume:
220 x 220 x 250 mm

Maximum Speed:
Up to 600 mm/s (with acceleration up to 20,000 mm/s²).

Extruder:
Dual Gear Direct Drive.

Nozzle:
0.4 mm

Key Features

• CoreXY system (high speed + precision)
• Auto leveling
• Flexible PEI bed
• Tri-metal nozzle

Slicing Software

Creality Print

Materials

• PLA
• Hyper PLA
• PETG
• TPU

Support Test Comparison

In the first test, we printed without supports to observe the finish of the part. The software warned about overhang issues.

In the second test, we used normal supports, improving stability and finish.

In the third test, tree supports were used to evaluate efficiency and removal.

Results show that standard supports provided the best overall finish, while tree supports improved distribution but left visible marks.

Clearance Test

Using standard supports and a 0.20 mm layer height, we observed that supports adhered strongly to the part, making removal difficult.

The best tolerances were between 1 mm and 0.4 mm. Below this, parts became difficult to move due to friction.

3D Printer Analysis – Bambu Lab A1 / A1 Combo

Esteban M. Valladares

Print Volume:
256 x 256 x 256 mm

Maximum Speed:
Up to 500 mm/s

Extruder:
0.4 mm stainless steel nozzle with Quick Swap

Key Features

• Automatic leveling
• Flow compensation
• Vibration calibration
• AMS Lite (multi-color)

Slicing Software

Bambu Studio

Materials

• PLA
• PETG
• TPU
• PVA / HIPS

Testing – Bambu Lab A1

Overhang Test

The printer successfully printed without supports up to 30° angles, showing excellent cooling performance.

At more extreme angles, deformation appears, indicating the limit where supports are required.

Finishing Test

Adaptive layer height was tested to improve surface quality.

Using smaller layer heights in curved areas significantly reduced the staircase effect.

3D Printer Analysis – Prusa XL

Jianfranco Bazán

Print Volume:
360 x 360 x 360 mm

Maximum Speed:
Up to 250 mm/s

Extruder:
0.4 mm nozzle

Key Feature:
5 independent toolheads (multi-material printing)

Software:
PrusaSlicer / OrcaSlicer

Testing – PRUSA XL

Retraction Test

Retraction and temperature calibration testing to analyze stringing behavior and optimal extrusion parameters.

Temperature Test

Adaptive layer height was tested to improve surface quality.

Using smaller layer heights in curved areas significantly reduced the staircase effect.

3D Printer Analysis – Bestgee T300S Pro

Cindy Crispin

For the printing tests, the Bestgee T300S Pro 3D printer was used with the following configuration:

Printer Settings

• Profile: 0.2 mm
• Infill: 20%
• Supports: Enabled
• Temperature: 215 °C
• Bed Adhesion: Brim

Supports are essential for complex geometries, preventing deformation and improving dimensional accuracy.

3D Printer Analysis – Bambu Lab A1 (Additional Tests)

Rocío Maravi

Printing parameters were configured for ESUN PLA with nozzle at 220°C and bed at 65°C.

Overhang Test

Parts showed good quality with easy support removal and stable bridges.

Tolerance Test

Clearances of 0.2 mm or greater allowed free movement, while smaller values caused friction.

Infill Test

Different infill percentages (15%, 50%, 100%) were tested to evaluate strength and finish.

3D Printer Comparison

Each printer demonstrates different strengths in speed, precision and versatility. This comparison highlights how machine selection impacts fabrication results.

Group Conclusions

This week allowed us to critically understand how different 3D printing technologies and machine configurations directly influence fabrication outcomes. Through the comparison of multiple printers such as the Artillery Genius Pro, Creality K1 SE, Bambu Lab A1, Prusa XL, and Bestgee T300S Pro, we identified clear differences in precision, speed, automation, and ease of use.

One of the most relevant findings was the relationship between printer capabilities and print quality in challenging conditions such as overhangs, supports, and tolerances. High-performance machines like the Bambu Lab A1 and Creality K1 SE demonstrated superior results in speed and surface quality, while more traditional systems like the Artillery Genius Pro required more manual calibration but still delivered reliable results.

The testing process also highlighted the importance of correctly configuring parameters such as layer height, temperature, infill, and support type. Small variations in these parameters significantly affected the final outcome, especially in clearance and fit tests, where tolerances below certain thresholds resulted in fused or non-functional parts.

Additionally, we observed that support strategies (standard vs. tree supports) have a direct impact on both material efficiency and surface finish. While supports improve structural stability during printing, they also introduce post-processing challenges that must be considered during the design phase.

From a design perspective, this week reinforced the importance of designing specifically for additive manufacturing, taking into account printer limitations, orientation, and material behavior. Understanding these constraints allows for better decision-making and more efficient fabrication workflows.

Finally, the collaborative nature of working across multiple labs enriched the learning experience, as it enabled us to compare real-world results from different machines and environments. This approach provided a broader understanding of digital fabrication and reinforced the importance of experimentation, iteration, and shared knowledge in the Fab Academy process.