3D Scanning and Printing
This week we explored the world of additive manufacturing and 3D scanning. I learned about FDM technology, print parameters, and how to design objects specifically for 3D printing — leveraging the unique advantages of additive manufacturing to create geometries that would be difficult or impossible to achieve subtractively. I also experimented with two different 3D scanning applications to digitize physical objects and bring them into the digital workflow.
3D printing is an additive manufacturing process where an object is created layer by layer from a digital model. In FDM technology, a plastic filament is melted through a heated nozzle and deposited along the X and Y axes to form each layer; then the printer moves up in the Z axis and repeats the process until the part is complete.
Because the part is built in layers, its strength is not the same in all directions. Within each layer (X-Y plane), the material is continuous and stronger. Between layers (Z axis), bonding occurs through thermal adhesion, which is weaker than the material inside a single layer.
For this reason, print orientation is critical, as it determines how the part will resist loads in its final use.
FDM Schematics — Image credit: Wikipedia, user Zureks / 3dprinting.com
In 3D printing, kerf refers to the amount of extra material deposited beyond the theoretical dimension of the model, due to:
This week I worked with the Bambu Lab X1E and the Bambu Lab A1 available in my node to compare their performance, print quality, and reliability. I prepared and configured all the files in Bambu Studio, adjusting the settings according to each machine.
When sending a file to print, the most important step is defining the correct printer, build plate, and material, since temperature and adhesion depend on the filament used. Print quality also matters, especially the layer height: smaller layers (e.g., 0.12 mm) give better surface finish but take longer, while larger layers (e.g., 0.24 mm) print faster with less detail.
Supports depend on the geometry. Normal supports are standard, while tree supports use less material and are easier to remove. The threshold angle determines when supports are generated — simple parts may require less support, but complex geometries usually start at 45° for better stability. Adding an outer or inner brim helps improve bed adhesion, especially for parts prone to warping.
To evaluate the performance of my 3D printer under demanding conditions, I downloaded the "Torture Test – All in One" by Gmino from MakerWorld, an open-source platform that provides 3D models optimized for Bambu Lab printers.
Rather than printing the model at its original scale, I intentionally reduced its height to analyze how the printer behaves when producing small, detailed geometries — a scenario that often reveals cooling limitations, precision constraints, and overhang performance issues.
This test combines multiple stress scenarios in a single print: overhang angles, thin columns, cylinders, triangular structures, engraved text, and dimensional accuracy features.
One of the most revealing aspects of this test was the overhang section. Angles above 45° begin to require support structures to maintain surface quality. Beyond this threshold, minor stringing and surface imperfections appeared underneath the overhangs. The 20° inclined column showed slight bending due to material weight and gravity, indicating that for stable inclined structures, either a taller supporting base (over 100 mm) or optimized parameters such as lower speed, reduced temperature, or increased cooling are necessary.
In the upper geometric shapes — particularly the cylinders and triangular tips — slight deformation appeared in the final layers, most likely caused by heat accumulation in small cross-sectional areas, insufficient cooling time between layers, and printing speed being too high for fine details. This is common behavior in small parts where layers are deposited too quickly for proper solidification.
The engraved squares and numbers were printed with good clarity and dimensional accuracy. However, the smallest text was not fully legible. From this observation, the minimum reliable engraved text size for this configuration is approximately 4 mm (0.4 cm) to ensure readability.
As mentioned on my About Me page, I work as a supervisor at the Fabrication Lab of Universidad del Pacífico, where we frequently design and produce trophies for university events. Last year, I was in charge of creating a commemorative trophy for CulturaC, a student organization that promotes Peruvian culture, in celebration of their first anniversary.
The concept was to design a golden alpaca — their symbolic mascot — placed on a base that incorporated subtle Peruvian cultural references. The goal was to create a piece that felt elegant, meaningful, and representative of national identity.
I encountered a significant technical challenge during the modeling phase. My organic modeling skills in Fusion 360 were still developing, and designing a stylized yet recognizable alpaca from scratch proved to be more complex than expected. I also explored downloading STL models, but many of them were high-polygon meshes that caused Fusion 360 to slow down when attempting mesh conversion.
While searching for alternatives, I found a beautifully designed model called "Mini Alpaca" by 3DGEPRINTNL on MakerWorld. This model became the foundation for testing print quality and surface refinement before finalizing the trophy concept.
For this print, I decided to experiment with layer height, reducing it to 0.08 mm. Lowering the layer height means:
I also added tree supports and both inner and outer brim for better adhesion and support removal.
The difference was immediately noticeable. The alpaca's organic curves — especially around the face and body — appeared much smoother and more refined. The visibility of layer lines decreased substantially, which is especially important for decorative pieces like trophies. The trade-off, however, was print time. Despite this, the improvement in surface finish made the additional time worthwhile. For aesthetic and display-oriented objects, reducing layer height is a strategic choice that enhances perceived quality without requiring post-processing.
After completing both tests with my lab partner, we compiled the main differences between the two printers into a structured comparison:
| Aspect | Bambu Lab X1E | Bambu Lab A1 |
|---|---|---|
| Best For | Functional parts, mechanical systems, final components | Prototypes, visual models, iterative testing |
| User Experience | More technical interface, better for experienced users | Very intuitive and beginner-friendly |
| Material Capability | Handles advanced and engineering-grade materials | Best with common materials like PLA and PETG |
| Print Stability | Very stable, ideal for long and demanding prints | Stable for regular and medium-length prints |
| Detail & Finish | Extremely clean surface and sharp details | Very good finish for standard prints |
| Consistency | Highly consistent across complex prints | Reliable for most general-use prints |
| Learning Curve | Requires more understanding of settings | Easy to learn and operate quickly |
| Project Type Fit | Best for structural and functional designs | Best for testing ideas and rapid development |
Overall, the X1E feels more powerful and industrial, while the A1 feels more accessible and efficient for everyday use. Using both gave me a better understanding of how to choose the right printer depending on the goal of the print.
For this week's individual assignment, I decided to further develop a key component of my final project: the smart pill dispenser.
Menstrual cramps can often be intense and disruptive to daily activities. While there are many types of pills available to relieve this pain, they come in a variety of shapes and sizes. This variability presents a design challenge when developing a functional and adaptable dispensing system.
Rather than designing a fixed model for a single pill type, I chose to implement a parametric design approach. This allows the dispenser to adapt easily to different pill geometries by modifying specific parameters such as diameter, height, or thickness. As part of my research, I found the YouTube channel Mellow_Labs and their video on a DIY Automatic Pill Dispenser, which I used as inspiration while introducing several modifications to better align the design with my final project goals.
The dispenser is composed of three main components:
The main body of the pill dispenser. It is a cylindrical container with a removable lid that makes it easier to access the interior. At the top, it includes a rectangular opening that allows the user to both view the remaining pills and refill the container when needed.
A structural component that fits securely into the base of the cylinder. This piece is specifically designed to hold a 36 mm motor in place, ensuring stability and proper alignment with the rotating mechanism.
The dispensing mechanism of the system. It includes a 3 mm central hole for the motor shaft connection and an 11 × 10 mm compartment designed to hold a single pill. As the motor rotates, the disc aligns the pill with the exit point, enabling controlled and precise dispensing.
I chose a hybrid design approach because I needed to create multiple parts that would later be assembled together.
Before starting the design, I defined several user parameters to ensure the model was fully parametric and adaptable:
While modeling the dispenser, I expanded my skills by using new tools such as chamfer, bevel, fillet, and new sketch shapes, which improved the details and overall finish of the design. I also worked with offset planes and angled planes, essential for creating more complex geometries. I learned how to use the thread feature for functional screw holes and strengthened my understanding of symmetry for maintaining accurate proportions.
The most time-consuming part was designing the container and the lid, since the lid needed to be removable and fit properly into the cylinder. Because it was a closed body, I used the section analysis tool along the Y-axis to verify the lid was correctly aligned internally.
The main cylinder acts as the structural body of the dispenser, providing stability and guiding the rotating disk. Wall thickness and internal clearances were carefully defined to ensure smooth operation and strength.
The N20 300 RPM motor was taken into consideration for the design. However, if the motor needs to change in the future, only the previously defined parameters need to be modified and the entire model will automatically adapt accordingly.
I used standard measurements to develop the 3D model. To ensure that the dispensing disk could correctly release a single pill, I measured one of my regular anti-cramp tablets using a vernier caliper to obtain precise dimensions. This allowed me to accurately adjust the design so the mechanism would function properly.
For the printing process, I used Bambu Studio to slice the object and convert it to G-code before sending it to the printer.
This is where I made my mistake when sending my first assignment to print. I set all the correct parameters, but the one thing I forgot to verify — and therefore did not change — was the type of filament selected for the print. I sent the G-code configured for Bambu Basic PLA when in reality I had a PolyLite ABS filament loaded in the machine.
This caused the pieces not to stick properly to the build plate, because PolyLite ABS filament, unlike Bambu Basic PLA, requires higher temperatures and a more controlled printing environment. ABS tends to warp and shrink as it cools, which reduces bed adhesion if the temperature and enclosure conditions are not optimal.
After this error, I paid much more attention to the parameters I set in Bambu Studio. I first made sure to select the correct printer — the Bambu Lab X1E — and the correct build plate.
Next, I had to add my filament type since PolyLite ABS was not available as a default option in Bambu Studio. I added it manually so the software could apply the correct temperature profiles and settings.
After that, I kept the standard parameters for layer height, loops, and speed. The key changes I made were in the Supports tab — where I enabled tree supports automatically — and in the Others tab — where I added both inner and outer brim for better adhesion.
Once I exported the file to the SD card and brought it to the printer, I needed to load the filament and identify which position it occupied in the machine. I selected position 3. On the printer's screen, I edited slot 3 and identified the correct filament, as shown in the images above. Finally, I sent the file to print.
The cylinder lid fits perfectly into the cylinder and properly closes the container. However, to create more pressure and achieve a tighter seal, I need to increase the depth of the extrusion located on the underside of the lid. At the moment it allows the lid to fit but does not generate enough friction for a more secure closure. It would also be important to review tolerances considering 3D printing material shrinkage and print accuracy.
The main issue I encountered was that the space designed for the pills is too small — I did not measure properly or did not leave enough tolerance in the design. As a result, the pills do not fit correctly, which could cause jams in the dispensing mechanism. To fix this, I need to resize the compartments and carefully consider the actual diameter and thickness of the pills, adding a small margin to ensure smooth movement.
Regarding the support and base, the main improvement would be to decide in advance which motor I will use to power the dispenser. Not defining this earlier limited the precision of the design, since the motor dimensions directly affect the internal space, mounting points, and transmission system. Knowing the exact motor model beforehand will allow me to optimize the structure, improve stability, and ensure proper mechanical and electrical integration.
I really like video game action figures, especially Kirby. For this assignment, I decided to scan my favorite Kirby figure. I chose this one because it has many small details, especially on the side with little snack pieces around him, which make it more dynamic and interesting. Since it's my favorite figure, it made the project more personal and fun.
It was my first time scanning a solid object. Our instructor recommended the mobile app Scaniverse because it is very versatile and easy to use. It runs directly on your phone and can generate detailed 3D models quickly, making the whole process accessible for beginners.
The first step was to create an account. After that, I selected the option to create a new scan. I chose the Mesh option to scan an object, since the Splat mode is more suitable for flat surfaces or more complex environments.
From the scanning categories, I selected Small Object because my Kirby figure falls into the toy category. This option helps capture smaller details more accurately, which was important due to the tiny elements around the figure.
I placed the figure on a flat and spacious surface. Then, I slowly walked around it with my phone, making sure the app recognized the object from all angles. I paid special attention to capturing the sides and the small details to get a complete model.
Finally, I exported the model in STL format for use in the next steps of the assignment.
Since the Scaniverse result was not satisfactory, I tried another scanning application: Luma 3D. I discovered this application through the Week 5 repository of Ofelia Sevilla, Fab Academy 2025.
Luma 3D has similar steps to Scaniverse, but with a key difference: it correctly scanned only the element I wanted to capture — a small alpaca figure — without picking up the surrounding surface. The result was much cleaner and more precise. The STL file is available in the Download Resources section.