As we mature as an industry standardization, advocacy, legal issues, regulatory issues and challenges beyond our current expertise lie at our horizon. We will at one point be blamed for something horrible and we will also face some regulatory pressure. At this moment periodic knee jerk legislation via PR is being foisted upon us. Who will help spread the truth about 3D printing and who will do advocacy on our behalf? One organization that has been growing steadily is Flam3D. Initially funded to promote the 3D printing industry in Flanders it has spread throughout Belgium and the Netherlands to connect and educate 3D printing businesses. Present at events, connecting people and bringing together information and companies Flam3D may just be that organization that connects us.

©Matthias Van Oost

What is Flam3D?

Flam3D is a network association for and by companies and research institutes active in the Additive Manufacturing Supply Chain and Ecosystem. It’s a demand-driven, bottom-up initiative now gathering over 100 members in the Netherlands and Flanders. We unite, represent and support, we connect and disseminate. Nowadays, I suppose you’d call it NAAAS – Networking & Advocacy-As A Service.

How are you funded?

Our deliberate choice to not play an active role in the AM supply chain makes it impossible for us to develop any real business. And that’s a good thing. As we say it: we don’t sell, we don’t produce, we don’t do research: our members do. Financially not the easiest choice, but we’re supported by membership fees and the Flemish Government. In view of the increasing success of the organisation, we’re looking for additional sources for funding in order to be able to offer a stable Return on Investment for our members. And to continue working on the dozens of ideas generated by our members.

What do you hope to achieve?

As most organisations, we should aim at making ourselves obsolete: when there’s no need for information on AM any more, when there are no more common interests to defend, when all children in school have AM in their curricula, we will have succeeded. I suppose we won’t be jobless any time soon though.

In the meantime: we aim for more growth of Additive Manufacturing in general, and for our members in particular. More than half of our members report extra business through their membership of Flam3D – that’s a prime “Performance Indicator” for us.

What events do you organize?

Networking and matchmaking in all kinds of disguises. The main aim remains the same: how do we get people to consider AM – and in some cases to reconsider it. You can name it dissemination events, information sessions, networking evenings, conferences, symposia, etc… but the name is just depending on the audience and their expectations.

What is holding companies back from adopting 3D Printing?

If you can demonstrate the Return on Investment, the value of the technology: nothing. Obviously, there are the usual excuses or reasons: time, money, complexity of the technology, steep learning curve required, reluctance to change, etc… But does it really matter? We think it doesn’t: as soon as the automotive sector, for example, was convinced of the potential, there wasn’t any valid reason not to start implementing AM. It’s a sales job, really, yet we’re not selling sand in the desert. We’re selling cars when some people are still asking for faster horses.

Now it seems that in order to do well companies have to master the boring stuff: ISO, compliance, accounting. Would you agree?

They’d better. I’d say it’s perhaps possible to achieve major growth without looking at “the boring stuff”. But in order to stay relevant, you’ll have to master these issues. For one reason: AM is still mainly relevant in high-tech sectors: medical, aerospace, automotive – that’s not the type of sectors where you can ignore regulations, rules and compliance. Nowadays the regulatory landscape forces any business to seriously consider this.

Where is our technology going?

Towards a standard manufacturing technology. It will all take quite a while – getting the standards right, knowing which technology to use for which application, etc. But in the end, a number of AM-technologies will be standard manufacturing practice.

So far we’ve done really well without government involvement, should we engage governments more?

Yes. But…
We should tell them (even more) what the playground looks like and explain the rules of this new game: what is the potential in medical applications? How can it support greener economies? Where should they aim?
We should also sell 3D-printing to them: what’s in it for them? A lot, in my perspective. To put it negatively: a government that doesn’t engage in new technologies will end up with a less competitive industry and economy.

However, I don’t intend to say to governments should start handing out subsidies and funding. And as it seems to be impossible to define what a good subsidy looks like, I’d say: on the contrary. Rather, they could create “ponds” for the ecosystem to develop: regulatory and tax shelter options where innovations get chances. They could also speed up the process of renewing outdated laws and regulations.

Lastly, governments could have a huge impact on education; I really can’t understand why this isn’t a matter of months rather than years, or why we even need to promote the idea.

Why should I become a member? What will you do for me?

There’s only one reason to become a member: if you see added value for yourself. Obviously we have a standard offer to our members – basically consisting of internal networking (between members), external networking (from members to potential users) and “other” (in which we help on our members’ marketing and communications, we work on education, insurance, discounts for members, etc).
We don’t exclude future expansion of our organisation, but at this moment, we’re targeting Flanders and the Netherlands only. Therefore, we have little to offer to companies and organisations outside this region; we rather cooperate with them then seeing them as potential members. We have, for example, found contacts for international projects, resellers for some printer providers, etc.

We have a unique model. As said earlier: we’re not taking a position inside the ecosystem. And we cooperate: we don’t duplicate or undermine efforts of other organisations, rather, we will look at potential win-win situations. That’s our strength and offers us an exceptional advantage.

Membership fees depend on the number of employees – it ranges from € 250 to € 2.500 and all details are available on our website. We didn’t want an “exclusive” club of a few wealthy companies, but rather a broad base of different specialties and types, in order to stimulate interaction.

With over 1.3 million men and women on active duty and more than 450,000 of them stationed overseas, some of them deployed to conflict zones like Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, and 20 million U.S. veterans, it’s no wonder the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is looking for ways to meet the medical, surgical and quality-of-life needs of America’s patriots. Some of their newest programs provide treatment for traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, suicide prevention and women veteran services, and in the past few years the VA has opened outpatient clinics, and established telemedicine, medical research and innovation to improve the lives of a diverse veteran population. One of their most promising ventures is a partnership with GE Healthcare to accelerate the use of 3D imaging in healthcare. As part of their research agreement, GE Healthcare provides the software and work stations, and the VA’s Puget Sound Health Care System provides feedback to the company on the use and results of the technology. In the past, the VA has used 3D software that wasn’t designed for medical use. Now, however, GE will provide software specifically designed for the medical field.

Together, VA and GE Healthcare will work to reduce the time it takes for radiologists to create 3D printed models and prosthetics from hours to minutes, accelerate the identification of new imaging approaches, techniques, needed materials and post processing steps to enhance the health of the nation’s veterans. Through this partnership, GE will be able to help clinicians explore many different opportunities to use additive manufacturing across care areas, partnering with the VA’s innovation team, already engaged with printer manufacturers. As a company offering diagnostic imaging modalities, advanced visualization products, and in partnership with GE Additive metal printers and materials, GE Healthcare is uniquely positioned to support the VA’s investigations across the image-to-print workflow.  

Building on its 3D printing network, VA Puget Sound and the Veterans Health Administration Innovators Network integrate GE Healthcare’s advanced visualization AW VolumeShare workstations with 3D printing software across its facilities in Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Cleveland and Salt Lake City. The AW Server is a medical software system that allows multiple users to remotely access AW applications from compatible computers on a network. The system allows networking, selection, processing and filming of multimodality DICOM images. VA has started to use AW VolumeShare 7 last november, a multi-modality image review, comparison, and processing workstation with simplicity and power at its core, featuring 64-bit technology that allows processing of up to 5K images in a single dataset.

VIDEO

3DPrint.com spoke to Colin Holmes, Senior Director, Additive & Visualization at GE Healthcare, about the advantages of working with GE’s Advanced Visualization Workstations. The expert in application of high performance computing infrastructures to medical imaging said that “using the AW VolumeShare 7 workstations, VA radiologists specializing in cardiology, oncology, orthopaedics and general radiology can quickly produce and critique models from patient studies as part of their normal clinical tasks.” According to Holmes, “as these radiologists are full-time practitioners, efficiency improvements with AW will allow them to spend more time focused on patient care, guided by 3D printing outputs, and less time on the labor-intensive process of producing 3D models.”

VA Puget Sound radiologist and the VHA 3D Printing Advisory Committee chair, Beth Ripley, is quite eager to join forces with GE Healthcare, although the VA has been using 3D printing for a while, the new software should save time and make the technology more accessible. Last year she said that “for most radiologists, 3D images are limited to reconstructions on a computer screen, so by harnessing the power of 3D printing with a rich data set, we are able to pull images out of the screen and into our hands, allowing us to interact with the data in a deeper way to fuel innovative, personalized care based on the unique needs of each of our patients.”

A printed knee achieved using GE’s AW VolumeShare to accelerate the 3D printing process (Image: GE Healthcare)

“Typically imaging information is most fully understood by the radiologist, who combines the patient’s medical history with imaging results interpreted through the lens of years of radiology-specific training to recreate in his mind’s eye the full anatomy. Now, the critical information held within the medical imagery can be expressed physically, augmented with colour or scaled as needed. Physical models allow the surgeons, who need to combine the medical imagery with their view of the patient in the operating room, to better contextualize and share their understanding and decisions with the full team. While, patients can better understand a disease, express questions and make more informed decisions when they can interact with the models rather than having to deal with complex verbal descriptions best suited to those with advanced medical education,” described Holmes.

VA Puget Sound Health Care System radiologist, Beth Ripley, perform a quality check on a model of a kidney with a cancerous tumor

At this phase of their project, the VA teams working with AW VolumeShare 7 technology are using polymer printers that come from other companies to make models to explore their impact on surgical planning, resident teaching and training, and patient education. The VA operates one of the largest health care systems in the world and provides training for a majority of America’s medical, nursing and allied health professionals, roughly 60% of all medical residents obtain a portion of their training at VA hospitals. The VA health care system has grown from 54 hospitals in 1930 to 1,600 health care facilities today, including 144 VA Medical Centers and 1,232 outpatient sites of care. As the largest integrated health care system in the country, the VA not only cares for U.S. Veterans, but can advance change and positively disrupt the way America delivers health care.

The VA has been using 3D printing for some years now. From developing a 3D printed artificial lung that could help treat veterans affected by lung disease at VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, to reproducing near-exact replicas of body parts for Veterans using any of the five Stratasys 3D printers at VA hospitals in Seattle, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Boston and Orlando. Stratasys even went a step further and introduced AM job training and certification initiatives for the military veterans at San Diego.

A printed baby heart achieved using GE’s AW VolumeShare to accelerate the 3D printing process (Image: GE Healthcare)

GE Healthcare, made $17 billion in revenues last year and is one of the world’s top three med-tech companies by size. It has the world’s largest installed base in imaging, mobile diagnostics and monitoring, with over 4 million systems in use worldwide and a leading portfolio of contrast media and nuclear medicine agents that enhance the acuity of diagnostic imaging systems, these pharmaceutical diagnostics are used in three patients every second around the world. 

“We have been on our Additive Journey for nearly six years, and a lot of our early investments into additive technology and people were focused on printing polymer structures which fit well in the medical model printing space.  Over time we have been partnering with our Imaging teams to further accelerate the process to go from a medical image scan to a printed medical model,” described Holmes. Additive manufacturing is an evolving tool across the GE spectrum, from providing optimizations and innovation for parts in their leading imaging systems to new ways to explore, learn and share understanding of the data they generate.

So, how do we expect hospitals and medical research facilities -like VA Puget- will advance patient healthcare into the next decade? According to Holmes, leading research and teaching hospitals are almost all engaged in early work to incorporate additive manufacturing into their programs, from basic science to enhanced education, combined with AR and VR, to new diagnostic and therapeutic tools. “As healthcare begins to benefit from the fourth wave of industrialization, these new combined digital and manufacturing approaches are tremendously exciting as enablers and accelerators of much broader access to current healthcare standards worldwide,” he revealed.

Considering this is an investigation in early stages and there are still no quantified outcomes, only time will tell the degree to which this will improve the lives of over 110,000 veterans across the nine facilities of VA Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest. However, it is safe to say that 3D printing technology is already improving patient experience, reducing treatment time and decreasing the cost of care for the millions of veterans in the United States, as well as patients worldwide. Most doctors are starting to see the benefits of moving from flat layered images to the replicated organic structures they will encounter in the operating room, and patients can understand a 3D print much better than a CT or an MRI scan. Right now, only about 3% of hospitals and research institutions have 3D printing capabilities on site, but at the rate it has advanced in the last couple of years we can expect a future widening use of the technology.

Usually when we think of robots in everyday life, it’s something anthropomorphic, maybe a cross between C-3PO and Rosie the robot maid from The Jetsons.

A continuum segment with a soft ‘hinge’ between each pair of vertebrae, allowing for increased torsional rigidity (Image: University of Leeds)

But robots don’t always represent the human form, and some kinds are never depicted in pop culture. Take continuum robots, who have found work in the aerospace industry, robotic surgery, and bomb disposal. Also called snake-arm robots, these slender machines can bend in smooth curves with all or most of their bodies.

These octopus-esque arms are usually mobilized by cables that generate force from the base of the limb that is then transferred up to different attachment points throughout the arm. This gives the robot the mobility and torque needed to move and twist. All of this is powered by electric motor actuators, which offer a high degree of control as well.

One challenge with these snakebots is that certain designs (like those with the actuators located in curved section) provide flexibility and torsion at the expense of strength and speed. This lack of rigidity is one of the main limitations in developing stronger and sturdier robotic lifting arms.

Solutions to this issue using precision engineering are costly, something a team of researchers at the University of Leeds is hoping to mitigate with 3D printing.

The Leeds’ Team’s Design

Motor, spool, and interlocking vertebrae arrangements for the tested segment designs. (Image: University of Leeds)

In a recent study, the researchers’ goal was to create a 3D-printed continuum robot segment with wide utility. To give stronger torsional rigidity, they opted to use of equally-spaced ‘vertebrae’ segments along a continuous flexible backbone (like in a standard serpentine robot). These segments help guide four tendons that move the arm but can also interlock with one another to generate rigidity.

Thanks to 3D printing, iterations on different versions of designs could be printed quickly. The segments housing each vertebrae segment printed pre-assembled with a Stratasys Objet1000 multi-material printer. Tango+ material comprised the soft, flexible backbone and more rigid Vero material made up the vertebrae themselves. To actually hold things, the design had a centralized bore that provided suction.

A Test of Strength

The segment testing mount to which increasing weights were added to the tip. (Image: University of Leeds)

The team settled on two designs to test for measuring lifting capabilities.

To test the arms’ individual segments, each was mounted horizontally to said rig. The tests began from two distinct starting positions: one from completely vertical, which activated one of the arm’s motors; and another rotated 45 degrees vertically which activated both motors. The test started from the segment’s lowest limit of motion, with the weight lifted vertically as high as possible.

At its best, the team’s V 1.2 design that engaged both motors was able to carry a max payload of 1300g (1.3kg/2.86lbs). For this configuration, the average speed under max payload was 10 degrees per second. The interlocking vertebrae design’s performance was also encouraging as it performed predictably under load.

Results from the torsional lifting test on four different segment configurations

While 1.3 kilos might seem like a paltry amount compared to what conventionally-made industrial robots can do, this could be the first step toward replacing those with 3D printed ones that are technically superior.

To get to that point, the Leeds team is looking to connect these individual segments into an even more capable working arm. No word on when they’ll get to testing a ‘dusting the furniture’ motion.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

[Source: WhiteRose]

At the University of Amsterdam, researchers may be seriously impacting reconstructive dentistry with a new process for strengthening the alveolar ridge after tooth loss or other more significant health issues. In ‘Marginal and internal fit of 3D printed resin graft substitutes mimicking alveolar ridge augmentation: An in vitro pilot study,’ authors C. C. Stoop, K. Chatzivasileiou, W. E. R. Berkhout, and D. Wismeijer explain a new design they have engineered for bone regeneration with 3D printed grafts.

As is so often the case with 3D printing, the key is in customization—allowing for patient-specific treatment with a graft meant to apply to both horizontal and vertical augmentation of the atrophic alveolar ridge. With CT scans converted into data for creating completely customized grafts, treatment time is expected to be reduced and there is a greater chance for regeneration. This innovation accentuates the growing reliance of implants and prosthetics in resolving issues with appearance and chewing after tooth loss. Historically, dental implants can be challenging without the ability to customize extensively—and even with more patient-specific treatment, there are many obstacles that can come into play regarding successful implantation and regeneration.

Representative lateral views of virtual 3D models with small-defects.

Lateral views of virtual 3D models with large-defects.

(A) Frontal view of a CAD mandibular model. (B) Lateroinferior view of a CAD large mandibular graft. (C) Frontal view of the graft fitted on the recipient site of the mandible. (D) Frontal CBCT view of the fitted graft.

The amount of bone volume left plays a large role in success, along with the types of defects involved—whether they are due to gum disease, cysts or tumors, teeth being pulled, or trauma to the mouth or jaw. There is also a range of different categories for defects, with the worst scenario being both horizontal and vertical defects occurring simultaneously.

“In situations of major changes in both vertical and horizontal bone dimensions, the placement of dental implants without an augmentation procedure could be very complicated or even impossible,” state the researchers.

Guided bone regeneration is usually a long process, and surgeons rely on a mixture of both biological and mechanical properties. Autogenous bone blocks are often used in surgeries, with grafts secured on the ridge or in between areas of pedicled and internal cancellous bone. The researchers state that success often relies on integration of the blocks as well as how well graft edges are smoothed, their stability, and their shape:

“The ideal biomaterial should be customized to fit easily on or into the corresponding bone defect and to allow proper fixation,” state the researchers. “The optimal shape of the graft may come with multiple advantages in terms of: (A) Faster surgical procedures, (B) Better healing of the grafted site, (C) Reduced risk of peri- and post-operative complications, (D) Higher success rates of the bone augmentation procedure and (E) Higher patient satisfaction.”

Shaping of bone grafts can be complex and requires an experienced hand. Without the proper expertise, healing may be unsuccessful.

“For this reason, there is a clinical need for customized biomaterials shaped to fit the patient’s bone defects,” said the authors.

With the options available through CAD design, bone defects can be scrutinized more closely, and customized, accurate grafts can be created before surgery. The entire process is more streamlined, surgical procedures are faster, and the patient has a better experience all around.

Six patients from the clinic of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry at the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) were involved in the study, with the researchers evaluating cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets from each, to be treated with implants and augmentation with bone blocks. Patients all presented as:

• Partially dentate
• Combined vertical and horizontal defect of the maxilla (three patients)
• Combined vertical and horizontal defect of the mandible (three patients)

3D reconstruction was completed for each patient’s jaw, with data imported into Meshmixer for design:

“The atrophic bone areas were defined separately for each jaw model in the edentulous part of the jaw. Because of the bone loss it is not possible to place an implant on this part of the jaw,” stated the researchers. “The customized grafts could be manually drawn directly on the surface of the 3D projects by fabricating the original shape of the jaw.”

The void interface set at 0mm between model and graft. The models (n = 6) were evenly divided in two groups, according to the number of missing teeth whether categorized as small defect or large defect. 3D printing was completed on a Form2 3D printer, with the following settings:

“Print resolution was set at 100 microns. To standardize the procedure, every graft and model was printed separately in the center of the build platform with a 135-degree build angle. The print supports were set on the external outline to prevent them interrupting the critical internal area. After printing, the objects were washed twice in two separate 90 percent isopropyl alcohol baths (10 min each) and were postcured for 30 minutes at 45° using a 405nm light box, according to the manufacturer’s protocol.”

The grafts were assessed in vitro, with each one serving as a match for the defect. The researchers state that large-defect grafts did not require any further refining, while small-defect grafts matched after some effort in manually smoothing undercuts. Results of the study were a success, supporting the idea that it is possible to both design and 3D print grafts for alveolar bone augmentation. The researchers state, however, that workflow for this process needs validation in a clinical setting; further, ‘proper vascularization’ must be ensured.

Materials must also be further analyzed for the following:

• Biocompatibility
• Osteoconductivity
• Surface porosity
• Surface chemistry
• Tissue bonding
• Material strength
• Degradation rate

“The marginal fit of the grafts was better than the internal fit, while the average void dimensions seemed to be correlated to the defect type of the graft. Further in vitro studies with 3D printable bone substitutes are needed for the validation of this digital workflow for alveolar bone augmentation,” concluded the researchers.

While 3D printing has permeated so many complex industrial applications, it may seem surprising to many that it could improve issues having to do with your teeth, mouth, and jaw, also—but just as the technology is becoming more affordable and accessible to others around the world, now so are better dental products and processes, including items like orthodontic aligners, removable partial dentures, and high-performance dental 3D printers available to labs.

Blue and orange colored volume of the void between model and graft.

[Source / Images: ‘

’]

Although polymers are still the most popular materials used in 3D printing today, many users find themselves limited due to issues with inferior strength and rigidity. Creating composites is a good way to solve these problems, allowing manufacturers to enjoy the benefits of existing plastics while reinforcing them for better performance. In ‘Modelling and path planning for additive manufacturing of continuous fiber composites,’ Suleman Asif, a thesis student at Sabanci University (Instanbul), examines how the addition of continuous fibers can improve fabrication processes with thermoplastic polymers, and add greater strength in mechanical properties.

FDM 3D printing is mainly explored here. Issues with FDM 3D printing and these materials, however, tend to be centered around a lack of strength and inferior surface finish, build times that take too long, and inconvenient post-processing. In previous studies, researchers have used short fibers to strengthen thermoplastics, along with carbon nanotubes and fiber composites. Iron and copper have been added to ABS, and the addition of graphene fibers have been noted to add conductivity. In most cases, tensile strength increased but there were issues with interfacial bonding and porosity.

The use of short fibers and nanofibers has been explored, but Asif explains that such additions are better for applications like aerospace or automotive. With the use of continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic (CFRPT) composites, though, both ‘ingredients’ are extruded at the same time from one nozzle and show significant improvement and strengthening.

Schematic diagram of 3D printing process with continuous fiber composite

In a different study, researchers loaded both thermoplastic polymer and continuous fibers into the nozzles for FDM printing, with PLA and continuous fibers (some samples consisted of carbon fibers, and some with jute) added separately to another nozzle. While carbon did offer improvements in strength, the jute was not helpful due to ‘degradation of fiber matrix interactions.’ Other tests showed that PLA reinforced with modified carbon showed higher tensile and flexural strength values, demonstrating how powerful ‘preprocessing’ can be.

“Furthermore, a path control method was developed to print complex geometries including hollow-out aerofoil, a unidirectional flat part, and a circular part,” states Asif.

Previous methods also used ABS and carbon fibers, with two different nozzles and the carbon fibers contained in between the upper and bottom layers of the plastic.

“The process worked in such a way that after printing of lower layers of ABS, carbon fibers [were] thermally bonded using a heating pin before the upper layers of ABS were printed. In addition, some samples were also thermally bonded using a microwave to understand the difference between both methods,” said Asif.

In comparison to pure ABS, the results demonstrated significant strengthening in mechanical properties.

“In addition, it was observed that there was not much difference between the results obtained from test specimen thermally bonded by heating pin and microwave oven. So, it was concluded that microwave could be successfully used for thermal bonding between matrix and other fiber layers.”

Researchers also attempted to reinforce PLA with aramid fibers, showing ‘notable enhancement.’ Another test evaluated a raw material of commingled yarn, containing polypropylene (PP):

“A cutting device was also incorporated in the system, and a novel deposition strategy was developed. The results showed a remarkable increase in flexural modulus as compared to pure PP. However, the void presence in the samples was a major issue in the proposed technique.”

Overall, in reviewing the multitude of studies performed, Asif saw potential for improving mechanical strength, but realizes a need for control of the fiber position within the nozzle to reduce adhesion issues.

“The system also needs to be designed in such a way that the fiber lies directly in the center of the nozzle to ensure that the thermoplastic polymer is properly diffused into the fiber from all sides using a coaxial printing process in which more than one materials are extruded simultaneously through a nozzle along a common axis,” says Asif.

The researcher also began examining various path planning processes for acquiring point locations that guide the extruder in depositing materials for filling layers. Asif discovered that most suggested path planning was limiting as it only worked for specific complex structures—some of which would not be appropriate for fabrication of CFRTP composites. Asif suggests that as the algorithms stand currently, there would be problems due to:

• Under-deposition (typically called underextrusion in FDM)
• Over-deposition
• Movement of the extruder to next layer after filling one layer

Coaxial CFRPT printing and composite structure with unit cell

“Hence, there is need of a continuous path planning method that can generate a deposition path without any under-deposition and over-deposition, and with better moving strategy from one layer to the next one,” concludes Asif.

“As a future work, a screw-based mechanism can be designed and developed for 3D printing of CFRTP composites. It would allow the continuous input of thermoplastic pallets and, therefore, parts with large dimensions can be printed. In addition, a topology optimization based algorithm can be developed to control the number of layers containing fibers to produce optimized lightweight parts depending upon specific load applications.”

3D printing offers an infinite amount of opportunity for designers and engineers around the world, immersed in creation—whether that is industrial, artistic, or completely scientific. There is an immense amount of energy centered around this technology that just continues to grow in popularity, and especially as users continue to refine the processes and materials. Composites are often used to strengthen existing methods and materials, whether in making structural parts for aerospace, regulating electrical composites, or studying conductivity and different techniques for fabrication. Find out more about the use of continuous fiber composites 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.

Effect of nozzle diameter on the elastic modulus of continuous fiber composites

Implementation of the developed algorithm on a commercial printer (a) Complex
concave geometry (b) Fidget spinner

[Source / Images: ‘

’]

Microfluidic Process

We have previously mentioned the topic of microfluidics within this series of articles. Microfluidics deals with the behavior, precise control, and manipulation of fluids that are geometrically constrained to a small, typically sub-millimeter, scale at which capillary penetration governs mass transport. It is a multidisciplinary field at the intersection of engineering, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, nanotechnology, and biotechnology, with practical applications in the design of systems in which low volumes of fluids are processed to achieve multiplexing, automation, and high-throughput screening. Microfluidics emerged in the beginning of the 1980s and is used in the development of inkjet printheads, DNA chips, lab-on-a-chip technology, micro-propulsion, and micro-thermal technologies. We will explain the importance of this technology within the realm of bioprinting below.

The history of microfluidics dates back to the 1970s and the initial inkjet printer systems created. It was known as a fluid handling system for printers. In the 1970s a miniaturized gas chromatograph was realized on a silicon wafer. By the end of the 1980s, the first micro-valves and micro-pumps based on silicon micro-machining had also been presented. Micro-machining refers to the technique for fabrication of 3D and 2D structures on the micrometer scale. In the following years several silicon-based analysis systems have been presented. All these examples represent microfluidic systems since they enable the precise control of decreasing fluid volumes on one hand and the miniaturization of the size of a fluid handling system on the other.

Microfluidics technology can be leveraged well for biochemical and biomedical analysis. This technology initially has been used in these fields for chemical detection. This can be useful for if we want to test a biomaterial for toxicity for example. Toxicity is vital if we want to use a biomaterial for bioprinting purposes. With a contaminated specimen or biomaterial, we are going to harm the body if it is used to replace a kidney for example. We also are using microfluidics to actually print the material, such as a tissue. The tube or pump associated with some bioprinters is based on microfluidic technology. Below is a video of a company that has a microfluidic nozzle based printing system:

VIDEO

The biggest advantages of microfluidic based bioprinting setups include the following:

1. Better control of material at a micro material level
2. Higher resolution of prints
3. Better macroscopic results
4. Multi Material usage

Microfluidics allows for better control of material at a micro level due to the precision of a pump or microfluidic tube when it comes to directing the flow of biomaterial to actual printing execution. Due to having such a precise control at the microlevel, systems naturally scale up to the macrolevel and result in extremely nice and high resolution prints. Outside of the resolution and accuracy brought up previously, microfluidic technology allows us to create multi material prints for bioprinting purposes. With microfluidic technology we are able to create our materials within the printer technology itself. There lies no need for laboratory fabrication of the material. A microfluidic chamber can control the mixing of various materials in house. Microfluidics chambers control when two or more opposing materials may be mixed together. Think of them in terms of a dam controlling the flow of liquid.

This technology is still new and rapidly expanding. With the future of biomaterials and bioprinting, we are looking to standardize technology across the spectrum of the field. Microfluidics takes the thought process of old school technology with inkjet printers, but is now merging new and innovative methods within the rapidly growing field of bioprinting. It makes for a lot of interesting things to come as a whole.

In 2015, Johnson & Johnson launched the WiSTEM²D (Women in Science, Technology, Math, Manufacturing and Design) program in order to increase the representation of women in the scientific and technical fields, along with the development of female leaders. The unique, multifaceted program is meant to engage women at three important development phases of their lives: youth (ages 5-18), the university graduate level, and in their professional careers.

J&J began offering its WiSTEM²D Scholars Award in 2017, which is meant to fuel development of female leaders in STEM²D, as well as add to the talent pipeline. The award supports the winners’ research, while also inspiring other women to go down similar career paths in their own STEM²D fields. Now in its third year, nominations for the Scholars Award were accepted from female scholars in each of the STEM²D disciplines: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Manufacturing and Design. An independent Advisory Board was set up to choose the winners from over 400 international applicants, and the six winners were recently announced.

“Through this Award and other programs, Johnson & Johnson is working to increase the participation of women in STEM²D fields worldwide. We want to nourish the development of women leaders building a larger pool of highly-trained, female researchers so that they can lead STEM²D breakthroughs in the future,” said Cat Oyler, Vice President, Global Public Health, Tuberculosis, Johnson & Johnson and WiSTEM²D University Sponsor.

In addition to being recognized at an awards ceremony tonight at Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide headquarters in New Jersey, the winners – all assistant or associate academic professors, or the global equivalent of such – will each receive $150,000 in research funding, as well as three years of mentorship from Johnson & Johnson.

Just like Johnson & Johnson, we here at 3DPrint.com have also worked hard to highlight the 3D printing-related accomplishments of young girls and women in STEM and tech fields. That’s why I was thrilled to learn that one of this year’s winners is focused on manufacturing and 3D printing.

Each Scholars Award winner represents one of the STEM²D disciplines:

•  Katia Vega, PhD, Assistant Professor of Design, UC Davis: while she’s already using the human body as a source of wearable technology, she’ll move on to experimenting with interactive skin and biosensors.
• Ronke Olabisi, PhD, Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Rutgers University: developing a new hydrogel that can be placed over an injury and constantly deliver insulin and stem cell growth factors for faster skin and tissue growth.
• Grace X. Gu, PhD, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at University of California, Berkeley: developing a smarter, more efficient 3D printer that can self-correct during a print job.
• Rebecca Morrison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Computer Science at University of Colorado, Boulder: identifying flexible algorithms that can run calculations on shifting variables more quickly and accurately.
• Naama Geva-Zatorsky, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institure of Technology: studying the interactions between the immune system and gut microbes.
• Shengxi Huang, PhD, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering, The Penn State University: developing one device to measure potential disease-causing biomolecules, like cancer cells.

Grace Gu, PhD

Gu, who joined the UC Berkeley faculty in 2018, is looking to address the limitations in manufacturing and materials design with her smart, self-correcting 3D printer.

“I am really excited to build my research group at Berkeley, meet and mentor undergraduate and graduate students, teach foundational mechanical engineering classes, collaborate with exceptional faculty members within and outside the university, and work on 3D-printing projects with students to create a better tomorrow,” Gu said when she began her job at the university.

Gu received her BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan in 2012, picking up an MS from MIT two years later and remaining at MIT to earn her PhD in Mechanical Engineering in 2018. According to UC Berkeley, her research interests include harnessing the power of “tools such as advanced computational analysis, machine learning and topology optimization to revolutionize the field of smart additive manufacturing.”

In her research group at the university, the work is focused on bio-inspired materials.

“The big goal is to develop materials that are inspired by nature, like seashells and bones, and discover new material combinations never before manufactured. These biomaterials possess remarkable mechanical properties that are yet to be replicated by man-made counterparts,” Gu said. “This way we can make implants, for instance, tailored to each individual with the properties necessary for structural integrity of the part—and push the frontiers of additive manufacturing.”

[Image: UC Berkeley]

The work for which she received her WiSTEM

D Scholars Award is centered around building a smarter 3D printer. As

, she trained “a model for a smart 3D printer that can perform predictive diagnostics to ensure optimal printing quality.”

Gu is taking computer science concepts and applying them to manufacturing in order to create her smart 3D printer. The ultimate goal of this particular research is develop a 3D printer that’s able to correct mistakes by itself while working, while also using a wider range of materials in order to more quickly and reliably produce objects like tougher bike helmets and stronger prosthetics.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

[Images: Johnson & Johnson unless otherwise noted]