Additive Manufacturing, Design Rules and 3D Digitization
During this week, the 3D Scanning and Printing module was conducted at the FabLab of the University of Cuenca, focusing on the principles of additive manufacturing (AM) using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology. Unlike subtractive methods such as CNC milling, additive manufacturing builds objects layer by layer, allowing the fabrication of complex geometries that would otherwise be impossible to achieve.
This work was carried out in a collaborative group composed of Ing. Rodrigo Guamán and myself, as students of the FabAcademy 2026 program. The learning objectives established by our instructor Roberto were:
The design challenge required the creation of an object that could only be manufactured by additive methods. Autodesk Fusion 360 was used as the CAD platform. The selected geometry was a nested object design where one component is trapped inside another, making it impossible to fabricate subtractively.
The slicing process was carried out using Bambu Studio. The following parameters were applied:
This work was carried out in a collaborative group composed of Ing. Rodrigo Guamán and myself, as students of the FabAcademy 2026 program.
To evaluate the performance of different machines, the same test file was printed on three different 3D printers available in the FabLab:
Across the three machines, dimensional variations were observed between 0.5% and 2% relative to the CAD model. The Bambulab X1 Carbon achieved the best surface quality and dimensional accuracy, while the FLSUN V400 excelled in speed but with slightly more noticeable layer artifacts. The Elegoo Neptune 3 Max was effective for large objects but required more careful calibration to reduce warping at the edges.
For the scanning activity, the Creality CR-SCAN 01 handheld 3D scanner was used. Creality CR-SCAN 01 Specifications:
The scanned object was an organic form (a bust scan of myself). The result was initially a point cloud, which required post-processing in Blender to smooth surfaces, close mesh gaps, and eliminate noise.
The scanned object was an organic form (a bust scan of myself). The result was initially a point cloud, which required post-processing in Blender to smooth surfaces, close mesh gaps, and eliminate noise.
The cleaned 3D model was exported and prepared again in Bambu Studio using the Bambulab X1 Carbon printer. No supports were required due to the design orientation. A smooth surface finish was achieved using the slicer’s “smooth” tool path optimization, resulting in a detailed and faithful reproduction of the scanned geometry.
Our first test of that did not work out, as confirmed by Roberto, because of some unexpected printing error which made the machine stop randomly and refuse to continue the printing job. This is when the printer stopped working:
3D printing is a great tool to create small objects or parts of an object and has lots of advantages vs CNC milling and Laser Cutting. I enjoyed this exercise as it helped me understand how the printer works, and the possibilities of it. I think it is a great way to create objects, however, because of time, it may be better to create the mold of an object using 3D printing and then use another faster process to create objects.
This assignment was developed as part of the group work conducted at the Industrial FabLab UCuenca. The calibration tests across the three 3D printers (Bambulab X1 Carbon, FLSUN V400, and Elegoo Neptune 3 Max) were carried out collaboratively with Ing. Rodrigo Guamán. The group documentation includes comparative evaluation of dimensional accuracy, surface quality, and calibration parameters.
Through comparative testing, I learned that dimensional variation ranged between 0.5% and 2% depending on the machine. The Bambulab X1 Carbon provided the best dimensional accuracy and surface finish due to its lidar-assisted calibration and stability. The FLSUN V400 demonstrated extremely high speed but introduced slightly more visible layer artifacts. The Elegoo Neptune 3 Max proved suitable for large-scale prints but required more calibration effort to avoid edge warping. These observations reinforced the importance of calibration, printer architecture, and motion systems in additive manufacturing.
The object was designed in Autodesk Fusion 360 as a nested geometry where one internal component is mechanically trapped inside an external shell. This configuration cannot be produced through subtractive manufacturing methods such as CNC milling because the internal geometry would require tool access that is physically impossible once the outer shell is closed. The model was sliced using Bambu Studio with a 0.15 mm layer height, 15% grid infill, 1 mm wall thickness, and no supports. The object was printed in a single piece using PLA filament and a 0.4 mm nozzle diameter.
The scanning process was performed using the Creality CR-SCAN 01 structured light scanner. The object scanned was a bust of myself. The initial result was a point cloud which required post-processing in Blender to smooth surfaces, repair mesh gaps, and eliminate noise. The cleaned mesh was exported in STL format and prepared again in Bambu Studio for printing. This workflow demonstrated the full pipeline: scanning → mesh processing → slicing → printing.
The original design and manufacturing files are included in the documentation:
Final hero shots of both the designed object and the scanned model are included in the documentation, demonstrating successful fabrication and surface quality results. These images validate dimensional fidelity and structural integrity of the printed components.