As the 3D Printing Studio Lead at Olin College, I was responsible for managing our fleet of 3D printers and creating resources, tools, and workshops to encourage students to use the printers in creative ways. As a free resource disconnected from Olin’s Machine Shop, the intent of the space was to make manufacturing more accessible at the school. However, students often came in with preconceptions about the 3D printers and viewed it as just another means of producing a part. I wanted to convey that the 3D Printing Studio could be used for creative manufacturing exploration and play as well as for prototypes and model-making.
Researching under Professor Amon Millner at Olin College, I studied how I could design parts and experiences that could change the mindset around 3D printing.
Explore the limits of additive manufacturing to encourage more creativity when designing for and using 3D printers.
Design a part that can remove itself from a 3D printer once complete, and share design strategies and tips as part of the community.
One of the most interesting aspects of 3D printing stems from its inherently additive nature: that you can pause a print partway through and modify it if you so choose. The keychain printing here is a great example. Once the print is halfway done, you can pause it, place a quarter in, and then resume the print to capture the quarter to create a seemingly impossible object. I called this manufacturing strategy “co-processing”, but it has also been referred to as “overprinting” in the industry.
By taking this simple concept to the extreme, I could expose the unique characteristics of the additive process to students and 3D printing enthusiasts at large. I shared my work online and with students to see how they could use these concepts in their projects. I documented my work on my 3D printing blog (please excuse all the 3D printing puns) and discussed my findings in regular videos along the way.
I split my work up into a series of 1-2 week design studies over the course of the semester. Each design study consisted of a design and testing element alongside a blog post and video where I could share my work and discuss its implications. Each study either explored design strategies for embedding parts, or explored how to get a part to move itself off the build plate through embedded features.
Before diving into complicated methods of embedding various components into 3D printed parts mid-print, I first wanted to get an understanding of some of the design strategies at play.
Tolerancing & Unit Tests
Whether embedding parts or not, 3D printing small tests reflective of intended geometries are a great way to validate the tolerances of your printed parts before committing to a long print. I created and shared examples of unit tests during my 3D printing projects at Olin and beyond as a great time- and effort-saving practice regardless of application.
Print-In-Place Joints
3D printing allows for integrated joints that work right off the build plate. Leveraging the unsupported overhang angles FDM-based printers can achieve, you can create a low-profile hinge with no assembly required. The cross-section to the left is a great example of a print-in-place joint, with the features constraining each individual piece to one-another but still allowing for rotation.
Embedding Uneven Parts
While embedded parts with flat tops can be easily integrated mid-print, embedding and securing uneven parts like circuit boards and motors was not as simple. However, the challenge proved easy to overcome with a secondary printed piece that matches the contours of the embedded component and has a flat top (or bottom, since it would be better to print upside-down).
By printing this part and installing it above the uneven components, you can create a flat surface to print on top of that the printed material will adhere to easily.
Once establishing the design strategies above, I explored how to get parts to move off the print bed as a result of the embedded components. By creating “scenes” that would play out on the build plate, I could shift the perception of 3D printing from a typical manufacturing process to an altogether unique method of fabrication.
Print-Head-Driven Actuation
I started by using the printer itself to trigger “events” on the print bed. This included using the print head to push components that had been modified during the printing process, or triggering loaded springs embedded mid-print to pop the parts off the build plate.
Embedded Sensor-Driven Actuation
As the “finale” of my project, I designed a robot that you could print in one build and drop electronics into during the print. Once the print got to a certain point, the robot would sense the distance to the top of the printer and drive off the build plate.
While printing parts that move themselves off the build plate was impractical because the parts themselves were designed for that sole purpose, my research unveiled insights about 3D printed part design and where and when co-processing is valuable.
Time-Sensitive: Parts must be embedded as soon as possible after a print pauses. When a print is paused, the material cools and creates a potential fracture point at the paused layer.
Lack of Scalability: Unless automated, co-processing is not scalable because it requires a time-sensitive manual intervention.
Difficulty of Maintenance: If designing parts intended to be put to use, they can no longer be accessed once embedded. The designer must be certain there are no issues with the embedded components.
Fiddling: Especially for more complicated embedded components, co-processing requires lots of trial-and-error to get right.
Unit Tests: With or without co-processing, designing unit tests to validate fits and tolerances prior to printing large parts is a valuable workflow.
Reducing Part Count: Co-processing can reduce part count by eliminating the need for hardware or multi-part enclosures, making it easier to manage designs.
Success with Small Parts: Smaller parts like magnets and nuts can be co-processed easily and enhance a part’s intended functionality.
Cohesive Form Factor: Especially for smaller integrated components, it is easy to keep a streamlined, cohesive aesthetic without any surface interruptions.
Sharing my work during the regular trainings and office hours I hosted encouraged students with the “freedom to experiment”, and I challenged students to think more about the design for manufacturing considerations inherent to the 3D printing process before hitting “Print”. As a result, I saw some new and creative parts with integrated joints, embedded magnets, and students experimenting with living hinges at the studio.
This also altered my own perception of 3D printing and how to design parts that make the most of the process in tandem with other manufacturing methods and parts. The three pyramids below represent a framework I now use to teach Design for Additive Manufacturing, which I developed over the course of this project:
The Solid Pyramid represents “block CAD”. A part that might give a first impression that 3D printing is the best solution, but lacks DfM optimization. If part of this design changes, the whole thing must be printed again.
The Hollow Pyramid is a “semi-optimal” upgrade to its solid counterpart that saves some material and print time. Yet it still faces the same problems as the original, in that it has to be entirely remade if anything changes.
The Multi-Part Pyramid represents a design that takes advantage of 3D printing where it is most valuable: to line up the corner geometries. As a result the entire part is cheaper and more versatile, since only small parts need to be reprinted if the design needs an update.
I developed this Design for Additive Manufacturing framework to show that 3D printing can be used to target specific aspects of a design it is best suited for. Using the example above, 3D printing is best suited to create the corner geometries of the pyramid in a quick, cost-effective way, and it is not the only aspect of the solution. By thinking of 3D printing in the context of part design and other fabrication methods, designers can target 3D printing’s strengths while keeping their designs cost-effective and versatile.