In 2017, just a few months before his death, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said humanity only has about 100 years to escape Earth. Even though we have seen the signs alerting us that life on this planet is ailing, with plastic conquering the oceans, thousands of animal species becoming extinct and a shortage of water that affects every continent, the conversion towards a fully sustainable lifestyle that could revert the feeble state of our home is just not happening. So, many are actually paying attention and heeding Hawkins advice, trying to look for other “celestial bodies”, to conquer. One of the first to announce they were looking for volunteers to travel to the red planet was Mars One back in 2013, with over 200,000 people from 140 countries applying for a one-way ticket to join a human settlement on Mars by 2023. Millions of dollars later, Mars One went bankrupt showing us all how challenging developing the technology for Mars would be. Happily, they are not the only ones, four years ago, NASA outlined a plan to land humans on the surface of Mars by 2030, and world-renowned investor Elon Musk already has a timeline for colonizing Mars. The race is on to develop the technology, space shuttles, and medicine that will take the first settlers. One key challenge is housing of course, which is why NASA hosted the 3D printing habitat challenge, a four-part massive event that began in 2015 and created a competition among citizen inventors to use readily available and recyclable materials to print habitats useful for Mars colonization. Additionally, these discoveries in science and technology can also be adapted to improve life on Earth. During the final phase, runner up team Pennsylvania State University of University Park, was awarded $200,000 for their work. The interdisciplinary team of students and faculty from the Colleges of Arts and Architecture, Engineering, Agricultural Sciences, and the Materials Research Institute, have worked arduously during the last few years on this challenge and in the process, they engineered a breakthrough that moves forward 3D printing construction research and pushes the team closer to the goal of creating sustainable housing on Earth.

VIDEO

The four-phase competition requires entrants to develop advanced 3D printing technology, including the mechanical elements of the printer and a cement mixture using indigenous materials, to produce a structurally sound habitat that can be 3D printed by NASA’s space explorers on Mars. During the final phase, which took place on the first week of May, and after 30 hours of 3D printing, with nearly 200 spectators gathered at Caterpillar Edwards Demonstration and Learning Center in Peoria, two teams competed side by side, PennStateDen@Mars (the only university team in the competition) and AI SpaceFactory, culminating with the final print of each team’s structure. And although the Penn State team didn’t win phase-three of the competition, they returned to University Park having developed 3D printed home construction technology that could impact construction or help rebuild areas ravaged by natural disasters.

The Penn State team during the third phase of the NASA challenge (Image: NASA)

“Printing an enclosed roof has never been done before,” said José Duarte, Penn State team leader and director of the Stuckeman Center for Design Computing. “It was an amazing feeling and the success really highlighted the collaborative nature of the team. We had big dreams and because of everyone involved, they became a reality. We definitely feel a sense of social responsibility with this research. We are dealing with an environment quite different than ours.”

NASA’s encounter has generated many experiments, challenges and innovative results, helping 3D technology advance into uncharted territory, and Mars or any other planet humans intend to inhabit in the future will be a difficult endeavour. Mars is a rocky planet with volcanoes, canyons, limited access to water and a very thin atmosphere made of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and argon. It’s similar to Earth in some ways, but you might need to suit up before wandering around the terrain, let alone try to build your own home. According to NASA it’s a tough place to live, but thanks to the knowledge and understanding gained through these competitions, we might get a little bit closer to conducting live printing experiments on site.

Associate professor of architecture and fellow team leader, Shadi Nazarian, also believes that the technology could be life-changing for many people:

“Imagine an area that was devastated by a tornado; this type of technology could be sent to that area and shelters can be immediately printed for those who lost everything. This thinking drives our research and feels much more attainable with our latest achievement. The applications of the materials and techniques that we and our competitors have developed are many, including immediate possibilities for building with materials that are gentler to the environment, use indigenous and recyclable materials, and withstand harsh conditions here on Earth and beyond,” Nazarian suggested.

The Penn State team, led by Duarte and Nazarian, was originally selected to take part of the competition from an initial entry pool of 77 teams. PennStateDen@Mars was one of only five teams who qualified to participate in the Centennial Challenge. In both phases of the contest, the participants had to 3D print structural habitat pieces in no more than four days, that were evaluated and then crush-tested on site, using some of Caterpillar’s most overwhelming construction machines. During the event, the team faced the challenge of creating robots to build the habitat. The team was very successful, finishing in second place in phase two and second and third place in construction levels one and two of phase three of the competition, generating nearly $300,000 in prize money.

The Penn State team during the second phase of the NASA challenge (Image: NASA)

The PennStateDen@Mars entry to the competition was based on previous research aimed at developing functionally graded materials and verifying the possibility of designing and constructing seamless buildings, which can have a significant impact on architectural language and building processes. They further developed additive-manufacturing technology to 3D print habitats using a specially formulated concrete made from materials that can be found on Mars. But Penn State being selected for this challenge has also a lot to do with their experience and innovation in 3D printing. They have many 3D printing labs on campus, like the Maker Commons, which houses a large-scale printing installation of 32 desktop 3D printers as well as the Invention Studio; university researchers delved into 4D Printing with Wood Composites for architectural applications, while a Penn State startup, Trimatis LLC, hopes to help the planet with recycled filament and the university also created VenturePointe, a new startup incubator for urban campus Penn State Shenango, complete with 3D printers. Both Nazarian and Duarte have been doing research with materials and 3D printing in the past, resulting in the development of innovative and graded material interfaces, which would enable the design of seamless shelters and impermeable bonds between glass and geopolymer concrete to protect individuals and the climate inside the habitat.

“The Mars competition has given us the opportunity to expand our understanding of 3D printing in ways we didn’t consider,” Nazarian said. “The result has been breakthroughs that can fundamentally change concrete construction. For example, 3D printing does not require formwork, which consumes much of the cost and labor in this industry. I’m excited about how this research helps advance the construction technology that is needed to create sustainable housing options.”

VIDEO

Team members focused their efforts in developing a novel concrete formulation, advancing 3D printing processes, and designing the overall 3D printing system necessary to print large structures. According to Penn State, the production of the geopolymer binder used in the formulation of the concrete designed by the team does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unlike the production of the most common types of cement. Last year, assistant professor of civil engineering at Penn State, Alexandra Radlinska, along with NASA launched an experiment, the Microgravity Investigation of Cement Solidification – Multi-use Variable-gravity Platform (MICS-MVP), to examine cement samples aboard the International Space Station, which could have significant benefits for humans living on Earth and, eventually, the moon and Mars. Processing the samples provided with the fundamental baseline and insight regarding cement solidification in extraterrestrial bodies such as Mars.

Caterpillar’s Edwards Demonstration and Learning Center in Peoria (Image: NASA)

The 3D Printed Habitat Challenge will resume next year and PennStateDen@Mars team is ready to advance the additive construction technology needed to create sustainable housing. In the meantime, they are looking to showcase their breakthrough in 3D printing for housing on campus, where a 3D printed tiny house could be constructed, which, according to the university, will be a fully sustainable building and offer a glimpse into the future of home construction.

Additive Manufacturing is being used widely to develop sustainable housing options. With countries like Singapore busy at work 3D printing public housing, as well as INNOPrint 3D, a French 3D printer that (unrealistically) claims it can print emergency housing in 30 minutes, looking to print homes for the first settlers to colonize Mars seems like the right direction for the technology. Many innovators, companies and governments are passionate about life on other planets, and Mars has qualities that experts consider similar to Earth, with challenges picking up the pace of 3D printing technologies used in construction, it might not be long before 3D printers are being shipped to Mars for some of the first construction experiences in outer space.

Justin Finesilver

Justin Finesilver is the owner of the 3D Printing Store in Denver, Colorado. They are a 3D printing service bureau that helps various organizations and individuals with their 3D printing needs in Denver. From the consumer toy, to even the highly private aerospace solution, the 3D Printing Store has your needs covered. Justin helps to manage the day to day retail aspect of the store, as well as the social media marketing of the organization.

Give us some background when it comes to education and life experiences that have gotten you to this point?

I went to Colorado State. I went for an English degree. I used to manage retail. I got into 3D printing when my mom started the store. I kind of jumped in and did it on the side. I came on full time in 2015 and bought an ownership into the organization.

What was the first thing you 3D Printed?

The flexible bracelet was on Makerbot. It  was a clever design. I showed it to other people and they were amazed. It was my light bulb moment. This all sparked everything.

Flexible Bracelet Design

What are your thoughts on the maker movement?

All of these companies are pushing the envelope. They all started off as makers. These are all garage companies. It is the most important thing in our industry. People are pushing and doing so much innovation.

A contest entry in the store’s Additive For Coloradans competition.

What are the coolest products you’ve seen in Colorado?

We do a lot of industrial stuff. We do parts for satellites. There is a huge aerospace community in Colorado. We will have 10 products that have launched out of our store that will go to the market. We help to invent different aspects of toys. We have a lot of stuff in the golf industry. We have our green vertical as well. There are so many people with interesting products in this space. We have done a lot of scientific and industrial models. We have even done stuff for an ancient tomb for researchers. We run the gambit. We are a catch all place and it allows us to interact with creative.

What industry you think could benefit the most?

I think people are aware and smart. I think the custom footwear and dental industry are really cool. The personalization of the world is big. I am really excited about bioprinting actually. We were the first service bureau to buy Allevi’s bioprinter.

VIDEO

What are your thoughts on the industry in five years?

I think we are going to see a lot more known commodities. There will be a lot more production based technologies that are able to do 5,000 to 10,000 parts. The ease of use will be ideally better. Machines that do not have a lot of materials will need a larger amount of offerings. Companies like Origin are now looking for experts in materials to work with them as an open source platform. I want the industry to have the expertise in different fields create within their sectors. This includes hardware, materials, and software. 3D printing is democratizing manufacturing. We are not able to educate our workforce with actual skills.

Topology optimization is an important tool within the “generative design” toolbox that can be used as a component of a larger engineering and product design workflow. Let’s explore how topology optimization exists, in fact thrives, within a framework that utilizes field data, implicit geometry, and block architecture.

Topology Optimization and Generative Design

Let’s start by clarifying some terms often seen in the industry, most notably “generative design” and how it is viewed with respect to topology optimization.  A brief internet search of the two terms yields mixed results and in general it seems fair to use them interchangeably. However, after converging on more precise definitions, it becomes clear that some people do just want traditional topology optimization, while others are envisioning a more “generative” technique.

Topology optimization has been known for decades and is becoming more practical thanks in part to advances in computational technology and additive manufacturing. The approach is typically formulated as a conventional optimization problem, where an algorithm is used to minimize some chosen objective function subject to several constraints. For example, minimizing the weight of a structural bracket subject to constraints including stress, deflection, or overhang angles in the case of additive manufacturing. Topology optimization problems that are quite complex can be formulated, where they involve multi-objective, multiphysics applications with millions or even billions of design variables². Whatever the scale and complexity, the optimization process is conceptually operating in a continuous design space and converging on a global optimum while satisfying the known constraints.

What is Generative Design?

Generative design is the larger computational process and workflow built by an engineer for their specific product and application, of which topology optimization is simply one function that can be called upon. What in part makes a design platform “generative” is the way its connected workflows can be used to explore the design space, perhaps cycling through different materials, manufacturing processes, functional requirements, or even the most basic assumptions built into the process by the engineer. Whether this happens using simple parameter sweeps or more advanced design-of-experiments, for each iteration the process has generated a new design. We could stop there, but an observation worth noting is that these fully connected processes essentially generate data, and that is the key ingredient to even more advanced algorithms that are now emerging.

The Details of Topology Optimization

Considering topology optimization as a “function call” and a subset of generative design, let’s explore some topology optimization possibilities within an advanced software platform. The examples in this discussion were generated using the Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP) method implemented within nTop Platform for a basic compliance minimization problem. For each element in the design space, the optimizer will attempt to find a density value that minimizes compliance (i.e., maximizes stiffness) while satisfying a simple volume constraint.

The simple structural bracket example shown in Figure 1 highlights a few key concepts of the optimization process and results. First, a discretized domain is provided as the design space, materials are defined, and boundary conditions are applied much like any other finite-element model setup. In this example a volume fraction of 30% was applied, meaning the volume of the optimal design must be less than or equal to 30% of the original.

Figure 1: Structural bracket design space and raw topology optimization result.

Interpolation of Data Fields

Interpreting the results of density-based topology optimization is where most software applications begin to divert from each other. Interpolation schemes, such as SIMP, are used to convert the element densities into continuous design variables better suited for optimization algorithms. The result is the element densities can range from 0 (no material) to 1 (solid material) but also vary in between. This is shown in Figure 1 where the red regions correspond to the highest density and then the values gradually decrease towards zero density (elements not shown), with intermediate results blending between the two. While a rough representation of the optimal material distribution starts to appear, one implication of these interpolations schemes is that there is no definitive boundary in the result and the user is usually left to pick a threshold value between 0 and 1.

At this point, most software will extract an isosurface at the selected threshold value to form a rough approximation of a boundary which can be used as inspiration for final geometry reconstruction. Before we get to geometry construction, note that the most basic result of the density-based optimization process is a spatially varying set of scalar values, a density “field.” Figure 2 shows a planar section cut through the original design space which has been filled with an isotruss lattice structure. Here, the density field from the topology optimization is used to directly drive the thickness of the lattice, resulting in thicker lattices in the regions of higher density.

This example demonstrates the fundamental idea that topology optimization results, as fields, are naturally represented in this kind of platform and can be used like any other in the software. While this is a very simple demonstration with an isotropic material model, it is the key technique underlying some soon-to-come physics-based cellular material design capabilities.

Figure 2: Original design space shelled and filled with a lattice structure using the density field of the topology optimization (shown transparent) to drive thickness.

While the usual goal of topology optimization is to ultimately find some optimal shape, the raw result is typically some inspirational representation and not a definitive geometry ready for verification or manufacturing. It’s at this point an engineer must usually intervene to manually reconstruct a geometric shape—which can be a major bottleneck in the workflow. While there do exist some powerful tools to do this manually, the lack of an automated and traceable process will likely not keep pace with the rapid and iterative nature of modern engineering workflows.

Geometry Reconstruction

The geometry reconstruction problem is addressed by leveraging implicit-modeling technology. With only a few inputs, an implicit geometric representation can be derived straight from a topology optimization result. The results of the simple structural bracket example are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Automated smoothing process (middle) is immediately usable for additional modeling operations (right).

Until recently, manual reconstruction of geometry after topology optimization has generally been viewed as a major impediment but, using implicit technology, a smooth geometry is generated in seconds and can immediately be used in downstream modeling, simulation, and manufacturing functions. This smoothing capability provides an integrated, continuous, and automated topology-optimization pipeline.

An Evolving Landscape

Whether you’re new to topology optimization or an experienced veteran, you’ve most likely noticed that the technology is moving at a rapid pace. Start-ups have been built around the technology and larger simulation providers are showing renewed interest. My company is actively engaged with a number of research institutions studying the topic and is amazed by the number of novel techniques being developed. While such continuous change may pose a challenge, in contrast, block architecture provides an extensible and robust API that can evolve with improving technology. Much like blocks can represent geometry functions, they are also used to construct optimization problems within an extensible framework, allowing engineers to configure the software for the key aspects of their product and workflow.

Figure 4. Automated smoothing (left), subsequent FE analysis (middle), and contour slices for manufacturing (right).

As previously stated, a common goal of topology optimization is to find an optimal shape that is nearly ready for verification and manufacturing. Rather, the raw result from this method is best viewed as an inspirational representation, or one of many acceptable solutions. Either way, there are still data interpretation and geometry construction challenges not easily addressed through conventional techniques. However, when data is represented as a density field, this can drive geometric parameters, including lattice thickness, in a robust way. In addition, geometry reconstruction is no longer a bottleneck because of implicit-modeling technology. These two characteristics in particular allow for a more flexible, automated way to utilizing topology optimization as a viable solution for product design.

Trevor Laughlin is the Director, Product Management of nTopology

Related posts

• How Social Media Monitoring Can Generate Leads
• How to Plan & Execute a Social Media Takeover

 “Go take your lessons from nature, that’s where our future lies.” – Leonardo da Vinci

Virginia Commonwealth University student Mohammad Jawad takes a forward-looking approach to manufacturing, as 3D printing offers not only infinite potential for design and creation but also the possibility of ‘growing’ designed objects with biomaterials.

Jawad compares the natural world, where organisms grow in a pure manner, to that of the human environment where we create so much from artificial materials which are then put together in factories. Undeniably, manufacturing and mass production, along with the assembly press, have feathers in our caps for decades.

Mass production promotes sameness among objects, along with subtractive technology as parts are made from cutting or chipping away at materials until a product is shaped. While this may have been a novel idea at first, today, our environment is saturated with chemicals and pollution, affecting both nature and man.

Jawad proposes that while the natural and man-made worlds may be extreme opposites, they should still be viewed as ‘a paradox of unity and duality,’ with an emphasis on how they complement one another. The author also sees 3D printing as a catalyst for bringing together nature and design mechanisms, ‘fusing’ them to the advantage of both the natural world and humanity.

The author is a fan of Neri Oxman, quoting her regarding the industrial revolution:

“Assembly lines have dictated a world made of standard parts framing the imagination of designers and builders who have been taught to think about their design objects and systems in terms of assemblies of parts with distinct functions. The assumption that parts are made of a single material and fulfill predetermined specific functions is deeply rooted in design and usually goes unquestioned; it is also enforced by the way that industrial supply chains work.”

Like nature, design is always evolving—via human creativity, inspiration, and ambition. In generative design, Jawad explains that nature is imitated with a variety of different digital parameters. Many users may be familiar with software like Python or Grasshopper, which can be adjusted to the complexity level of organic forms, along with connecting in real time to create structures related to natural stimuli like the sun or moisture in the air.

“The intricate forms, which are generated digitally, can only be fabricated using additive manufacturing, where objects are created by depositing material layer-by-layer,” says Jawad.

“Additive manufacturing resembles natural growth in the sense that it slowly builds an object, layer-by-layer. By integrating natural materials and processes with additive manufacturing, this thesis proposes a hybridized process for producing objects in a post-industrial world.”

Saltygloo

Vegan Design

Jawad highlights several art studios, ending with a glimpse into his own work:

• Emerging Objects, by Ronald Rael and Virginia San Fratello, is a 3D printing studio centered around making large-scale components and architectural structures. In his thesis, Jawad features ‘Saltygloo,’ a pairing of 3D printed materials with salt taken from San Francisco Bay.
• Erez Navi Pana created an exhibit called ‘Vegan Design,’ meant to support animal rights and the elimination of animal products. In his work, he experimented with vegan and natural materials; for example, one aspect of his exhibit shows off wooden stools he created and then placed in saltwater for several months until it was coated in crystallized salt.
• Markus Kayser exhibits ‘The Solar Sinter,’ which is a 3D printer using solar energy to melt sand into glass—involving a Fresnel lens that raises the temperature to 2900 degrees Fahrenheit.
• The Mediated Matter Group of MIT Media Lab has created ‘The Silk Pavilion,’ inspired by the silkworm’s cocoon. To create the exhibit even more realistically, the team fitted silkworms with sensors so they could study their movement while weaving.
• Gavin Munro has created ‘Zen 3D Printing,’ an organic process using the elements like an open-air factory, demonstrated in ‘Full Grown.’

The Silk Pavilion

Full Grown

As for his own work, Jawad states:

“My thesis research combined two key processes: natural crystallization, and 3D printing. This combination informed the conceptual framework, preliminary exploration and final outcomes. Together, I was able to pair nature’s own 3D generation technique—mineral crystallization—with the digital control of 3D printing, to develop new fabrication possibilities.”

Works like ‘Desert Rose’ are made of beautiful crystals from Qatar, along with numerous other stunning pieces where Jawad employs his generative methodology in combining 3D printing and natural crystals to make items that are useful.

“The possibility of hybridizing natural processes with digital fabrication provides a point of departure for fresh thinking, opening new possibilities for the future of design and production,” concludes Jawad.

3D printing offers potential in a variety of different industry dynamics, with some users on the side of being able to mass manufacture more affordably and efficiently, while others are encouraged by the idea of being able to produce on-demand parts and customized products—bringing an end to large warehouses and stress on the environment overall. Find out more about growing generatively designed products here.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘

’]

In ‘Exploration and Analysis Based on Mass Customization Design and Production of Martial Arts Shoes,’ Wuhan University of Science and Technology researchers Peng Hong and Xia Xinqiao explore the dynamics not of mass production, but mass customization—putting the 3D printing spin on manufacturing, and a very interesting one at that as they go further to explain that while mass is usually associated with large amounts of items being made that all look exactly the same, and customization refers to unique and small productions (sometimes just one item), putting the two together could offer a novel ‘combination of two contradictory phenomena.’

True, most consumers hear the word ‘customized’ and think ‘expensive.’ Individuals shopping today though will keep searching for that item with the perfect fit, color, and functionality—whereas as mass customization could save everyone a lot of time and effort and offer great profit to the right manufacturers.

“Mass customized production could bring the maximum profit, make the products achieve single-digit differentiated production, so as to improve the product value, acquire data of consumers’ need, enhance the users experience and better build the brand reputation,” state the authors.

In the US, 25 percent of customers shopping online seek customized shoes. The authors realize the potential for continued customization via 3D printing, and for this study, they explored martial arts shoes as an example, beginning with a look at Puma’s efforts.

Puma has long been a proponent of allowing consumers to enjoy customizations, beginning with different colors and different shoelaces, but obviously that’s not too game changing. They went on in 2010 to create ‘Creative Factory,’ allowing customers to customize shoes at the storefront, choosing materials.

“However, these customized shoes are too small in scope with too little choice,” state the authors.

Along came Adidas though, with a huge emphasis on customization and the integration of 3D printing into their shoes—from 3D printed athletic shoes produced at scale and lace locks, to 4D shoes launched last year.

In terms of the best product and usability, the research team recognizes that martial arts shoes must protect the ankles and skin of the wearer, while also being lightweight and flexible to accommodate the wide range of movement required in what can be a very high-performance sport.

The authors discuss the challenges of mass customization as follows:

• Limited materials and molds for customizing shapes
• Difficulty in making large quantities
• Serious problems with exchanges of one-of-a-kind products

In overcoming current obstacles to manufacturing customized martial arts shoes, the researchers suggest use of a small foot scanner (by China’s Foot Technology Company) that could be installed in stores to measure feet and then upload data to a cloud database. The customized shoes would then be made in a factory.

“Customized shoes not only are precise on size, but also introduce concept of health to make the soles accurately correspond to the wearer’s foot acupoints as massage function. The realization of massage function helps people know that customized shoes is not only shown in the surface, such as size replacement and material, but also shown in the customized function, which is more important in consumers’ minds,” state the researchers.

Using Adidas’ model for Future Craft 4D sneakers, they realize the potential for better speed, affordability, and quality in product, pointing out that it only takes 20 minutes to make a pair of Future Craft shoes. And with the accompaniment of robotics, turnaround could be exponentially faster—and even more accurate.

“The demand of the professional martial arts shoe from martial arts enthusiasts is getting bigger and bigger; 3D foot scanning patterns uploaded from users can [be] produced massively and also meet the needs of customized martial arts shoes which will be welcomed by the vast number of martial arts practitioners and [also] for sports shoes enterprises to provide a way as reference,” concluded the researchers.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘

’]

In their recently published paper, ’Experimental study on parameters of 3D printing process for PEEK materials,’ researchers from Shandong University of Technology conduct experiments regarding the use of PEEK 3D printing materials for creating artificial bone. While there have historically been many challenges in bone regeneration techniques, authors H. Liu, X. Cheng, X. H. Yang, G. M. Zheng, and Q. J. Guo realize the need for high performance, strong materials produced with efficiency and as little waste and impact on the environment as possible.

During the course of their research, the authors realized that the optimum parameters for printing with PEEK materials in 3D printing are as follows:

• Layer thickness of 0.43 mm
• Density of internal filling at 55.05 percent
• Outer contour of 1.39

While there are numerous ways to make bone, clearly refinements can be made in the process—with the use of special engineering plastic Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) showing the most promise overall due to its outstanding strength, stability, and best of all—biocompatibility.

Coupled with the opportunities for customization offered by 3D printing, PEEK materials and processes surrounding their use merit further exploration.

In this study, the authors 3D printed a variety of different cubes for experimentation, each with a length of 34 mm, a width of 12 mm, and a height of 3 mm.

“The printing time and the length of the printed material are recorded by the control system, and the amount of printed material is calculated based on the length of the material. The storage modulus is measured by the dynamic thermo mechanical tester DMA-Q800,” explained the authors in their research paper. “Experimental design of the process for optimum 3D printing parameter was conducted according to Response Surface Methodology technique using a Box-Behnken design matrix. With reference to the previous study, the layer thickness called factor A, the density of internal filling called factor B, and the contour called factor C were chosen as the objects of study in terms of printing time, the consumption of printing material, and storage modulus.”

The researchers completed 17 runs, as outlined in Table 2:

For the verification experiment, the researchers used the aforementioned best parameters, resulting in success when compared with the control model. The authors stated that in comparison influence of each output response in comparison to the factors in their research was critical as interactions between said factors was so influential regarding the outcome.

“Verification experiment was carried out and it verified the correctness of the model and optimization results,” concluded the researchers.

3D printing and bioprinting for the regeneration of bone have become a serious focus for researchers around the world, eager not only to make scientific strides, but also to help eliminate pain and suffering for patients with conditions related to bone loss. From continued success using titanium to the use of nanofibers, to magnesium alloys, researchers continue to make impressive progress in the field of medicine.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ’

’]