Jump to content

SteveCox3D

Ambassador
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

SteveCox3D last won the day on November 19 2020

SteveCox3D had the most liked content!

6 Followers

Personal Information

  • 3D printer
    Ultimaker S5
  • Country
    GB
  • Industry
    Education
    (Product) design
    Engineering
    R&D / Exploration
    Manufacturing
  • On The Web

Recent Profile Visitors

2,034 profile views

SteveCox3D's Achievements

85

Reputation

1

Community Answers

  1. @kevinkar I would personally steer clear of using Cura 5.4 as there seems to be quite some issues with it. I'm still running Cura 5.3.0 and it's delivering good metal prints
  2. I'm not an expert in the software side, so I can't really shed any light of the incompatibility of the material with Cura 5.2.1. As far as I know this hasn't been highlighted as an issue previously. Whilst I can suggest ways of manually setting up the material profile to work in 4.13.1 it would be much better to get the root cause of the problem sorted. This is because BASF have spent a lot of development time getting the 316L and 17-4PH profiles right, and I don't know what all of the tweaks are that they have applied to the printing profile. Also with Cura 5.X certain features were added which were targeted at improving mFFF printing that can't be replicated in 4.13. One of these was "Alternate Walls" which constantly alternates the printing direction layer by layer to even out the internal stresses in the part. The standard expansion settings for the part are X/Y 119% and Z 125% and other printing settings to set things up manually are included in the BASF Ultrafuse 316L guidelines : https://forward-am.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UserGuidelines_2021_03_29.pdf
  3. @geert_2 The parts end up at 96-98% dense after sintering (providing there's no defect in the printing). I've not found these parts to be brittle, they seem to me to behave the same as if they've been made in any other way. That's not to say they won't break if they're over-stressed, in the same way that you can snap a standard fixing if it sees too much torque through it.
  4. Hi @hearbob50 the only printcore that the support layer material is compatible with is the DD0.4. If any other printcore is selected then you will see the red "X". Is that printcore option available in the dropdown list? (it was added in Cura 5.1)
  5. @hearbob50 It’s a real shame that the support layer material isn’t available in North America because it really helps to unlock the ability to produce more complex geometries. If you are using Cura 5.1 and the latest material profile for 17-4PH from the Cura Marketplace then parts should autoscale when you slice them. You only see that scaling though in the Preview mode where if you click on the sliced preview you should see the blue outline of the original part silhouetted against the scaled up version. There is something important to be aware of though that will affect the scaling in Cura. Either the same 17-4PH material or Support Layer material needs to be loaded against Extruder 2 in Cura, or Extruder 2 needs to be disabled altogether. If Extruder 2 is active with a normal material assigned to it then the scaling factor is averaged across the two Extruders, so you get 109% X/Y and 112%Z instead of the 119% and 125% required. That’s an annoying thing, but I’ve been told it can’t be fixed. The shrinkage plate is generated by clicking the Raft option in the Bed Adhesion settings. Without the Support Layer material though you will need to pause the print and abort it after the raft has been printed. Where the Support Layer is available it puts a single layer of that material on top of the raft to isolate the part from the shrinkage plate. If you install the Suuport Layer material from the Marketplace and set it to Extruder 2 and select the raft option you will see how it works in the preview. For markets without access to the Support Layer material the shrinkage plate needs to be printed separately and supplied together with the part to the debind and sinter service provider who will manually apply a ceramic spray coating to the top of the plate to isolate it from the part that sits on top of it. Hope that helps, if I can answer any other questions on metal FFF printing then let me know.
  6. @gr5 I flattened it in CAD to provide the flat face to interface with the support when it's sliced.
  7. No problem @toemmes, we're here to help. I too have 3D printed polymer bolts in the horizontal orientation to achieve better strength. One thing that I have tested with that orientation is flattening the thread where it contacts the support to provide a better first layer on top of the support material, rather than just lots of small extrusion at the tip of the threads. With a threaded bolt I had a good result with this, it gave a more efficient print with no significant loss of performance of the threadform. I'm not sure how applicable this would be to a woodscrew though, so I have experimented to show you what I mean and the difference it creates when slicing. In the image where the screw is normal you can see the small areas of red extrusion in the first layer of the thread printed on the support structure. There is also a lot of small areas of support layer material also being printed. In the other sliced image where the thread has been flattened you can see a much better first layer being put on top of the support layer material, and the support layer on top of the support structure is also much better because it is a continuous layer, rather than a lot of small individual areas. I'd be happy to share the slice files for these if it helps...... I think that threads around the 6-8mm area are the smallest that would work successfully using a 0.4mm nozzle, I think it could go smaller with a smaller nozzle but the CC0.4 is currently the smallest nozzle that you can use with the metal filaments. I would always recommend the Air Manager for use when printing with these materials. It does keep the print area more stable and the added air filtration that you get is a good thing too.
  8. Hi there @toemmes, as @gr5 says I've hot lots of experience with Metal FFF. As far as printing threads go, it can work really well as I showed in this post on LinkedIn The key thing here is whether the thread is large enough size and has enough definition when sliced to print out nicely. The part gets scaled up automatically in Cura 5.1 when you select the metal materials to account for the shrinkage that occurs when the printed part goes through debind and sintering. That means that the part grows by 19% in X/Y and 25% in Z, so you can only get an impression of how the part will turn out by looking at the Preview of the slice where these scaling factors are applied, The thread angle on the picture suggests that no support would be required for this part and maybe at an M8 size the thread definition would be ok. It's not just about the 3D printing though, you have to consider the post-processing and the stability of the part when it goes through the final stages of sintering at around 1300-1400°C. The stability of the part and ability to support it's own weight is crucial here. This is a part that you would normally print upright but it is quite tall in relation to it's footprint, so may be unstable and fail at that point. There are stress analysis tests that you can run to carry out a virtual simulation of whether the part will survive which is something I covered here. The screw is also quite tall, and that also affects the costs associated with debind and sintering because of the way the cost is calculated for that processing. As a general rule of thumb Metal FFF works best with parts that can fit in the palm of your hand and have a Z height up to 50mm with a good size footprint for stability (25mm or less in Z is even better). There is lots to know to be effective in taking advantage of this process of making metal parts, which is why I shared some of my insights in a series on LinkedIn which you can find by searching on #MetalThursdays Let me know if you have further questions, I'm happy to help.
  9. @Nacho2707 I don't speak Spanish but I have tried to translate and understand your question. Do you have the latest material profiles installed for the 17-4PH material installed. The default setting for Top & Bottom layers is 0 rather than the 8 that is showing in that image. The reason for that setting is that the Infill is set at 105% so there is no need for a Top or Bottom layer Via Google Translate : "Tiene instalados los últimos perfiles de material para el material 17-4PH instalado? La configuración predeterminada para las capas Superior e Inferior es 0 en lugar del 8 que se muestra en esa imagen. El motivo de esa configuración es que el Relleno está configurado al 105 %, por lo que no es necesaria una capa Superior o Inferior"
  10. Hi Milan, the size of the parts is a recommendation and is very much driven by the equipment used for the debind and sintering. The part has to fit into a tray during that process so the size will need to include the raft. I am in the UK and I know that the standard tray size used by the debind and sinter partner in this country is 200 mm x 300mm x 25mm, so anything with a footprint that fits inside that 200 x 300mm dimension can be processed. It very much depends on the post processing partner for each country, but to be safe I would say that the 100mm dimension recommended will need to include the raft.
  11. For those interested in the way that you can now produce stainless steel parts using an S-Line printer I've produced a guide to what's in the newly launched Metal Expansion Kit. It's there to explain how all of the parts fit together into the overall Metal FFF workflow, and includes not just my experience of 3D printing with the BASF Ultrafuse metal filaments but also includes some additional insights gained from some of the first people who have bought the kit : https://www.linkedin.com/posts/steve-cox-b575b29b_ultimaker-metalfff-3dprinting-activ[…]474565582848-Ik5g?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
  12. Invaluable @Smithy !! I should have taken note of the configuration before I pulled it apart to change the blocks. Knowing which spacer went where on the short rods had me scratching my head until I pulled up your reply.
  13. Introduction Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Amerigo Vespucci, James Cook. What do they all have in common, and what could they possibly be doing in a post related to 3D Printing and Generative Design? The obvious answer to what they have in common is that they were all explorers, many of them from an era known as The Age of Discovery. The reason they relate to this post is that Generative Design has been created for “design explorers” and it provides a method for navigating a route through to the discovery of the kind of design outcomes the like of which we may never have seen or used before. Using Generative Design we are able to engage in design exploration to assist us in seeking out new ways to solve engineering and product design problems, perhaps as part of our own “age of discovery”. It provides us with the opportunity of exploring what lies beyond the boundaries of traditional designing, especially where light weight, high stiffness and minimal material usage is important. Multiple Manufacturing Methods When it comes to engaging in that exploration though there can be a perception that Generative Design is only for pushing the boundaries for additive manufacturing parts. That perception is often shaped by some of the more complex, high-profile examples of Generative Design that people have seen, and the fact that when it first emerged it was initially focussed on additive manufacturing as the method of delivering its outcomes. However, that is no longer the case and Generative Design can now produce solutions that are far more inclusive when it comes to the types of manufacturing techniques that we intend to use to produce our final design. It is now capable of delivering designs that can be ready for manufacturing using methods such as 2D cutting, 2.5-axis, 3-axis and 5-axis CNC machining, as well as being able to produce outcomes for die-casting which can easily lend themselves to being used for manufacturing using other methods of moulding. To illustrate that point here are the results of a Generative Design study that returned a number of different solutions. All of them are valid design options, each tailored to a specific manufacturing method, and all of them were produced from a single set-up in Generative Design. Exploring a Fusion of Manufacturing Methods As part of encouraging the spirit of exploration introduced at the start of this article, I would like to introduce how fusing together additive and subtractive manufacturing methodologies within Generative Design can be beneficial. It also serves as an example of how Fusion 360 lives up to its name through the way it brings both manufacturing methods together within the Manufacturing and Generative Design workspaces that exist within it. When using Generative Design I would encourage you to consider that just because the manufacturing outcome for a study is targeted at one particular manufacturing method it does not always have to mean that it is the sole preserve of that method, and what follows is an example of a type of “manufacturing fusion” workflow. Additive Manufacturing Without Complexity Additive manufacturing is often described as a way of making things where “complexity comes for free”. Whilst that's never been entirely true it's a statement that has served as an enduring strapline for advocates of the technology. The truth of the matter though is that some additive manufacturing methods cannot deliver on that promise of high geometric complexity, yet they are still able to offer a very effective way of making things. Additive manufacturing with some materials and some techniques is restricted by the fact that unsupported overhangs are not only undesirable, but may not even be possible. With FFF 3D printers it is now possible to use material filaments that are densely loaded with metal powder carried within a polymer binder. Using these materials, parts can be 3D printed on desktop machines and then subsequently put through catalytic de-binding and sintering processes to get to a final metal part that is very close to being 100% dense. There are several examples of this kind of system available, but here I'm going to concentrate on an application using BASF Forward AM Ultrafuse 316Lmaterial on an Ultimaker S5 Ultrafuse 316L offers the opportunity to create 316L stainless steel parts through 3D printing but, at the time of writing, there is no effective removable support material that is compatible with this particular 3D printing filament. Overhanging areas can also be the cause of significant issues with part stability during the de-bind and sintering stage of the process, however, I still wanted to explore how that kind of material and additive manufacturing method could be used for creating a part that had been produced using Generative Design. Generating a Fusion of Subtractive and Additive Manufacturing So, I took a slightly different approach in Generative Design when it came to specifying the manufacturing outcome in order to do this. Because of the need to produce a design that was free from overhanging areas the manufacturing objective I chose to use was 2.5-axis CNC machining since, by its very nature, it should generate a design that conforms to that requirement. When specifying the manufacturing objectives for 2.5-axis CNC machining in the Generative Design study set-up there is the ability to define the minimum tool diameter that will be used. Whilst you would normally specify the real dimensions for the CNC tool that you are going to use, the software does not actually constrain you to using real-life tools. So, it doesn’t really matter for instance that you are unlikely to be using a 0.4 mm diameter tool for 2.5 axis machining but, if you are looking to create a solution for FFF 3D printing, that dimension could be used to represent the diameter of the material extrusion from the nozzle being used. So, using that thinking, here's a study that I ran for the design of a gripper arm. It’s one that is based on the design that can be found in Sample projects section in the Fusion 360 Data Panel: ( Project => Simulation Samples, Folder => 1 – Hands-On Exercises, Design => GripperArm). In this case I set up the study and included the 2.5-axis CNC machining manufacturing objective in the full knowledge that I intended to use the outcome instead for an additive manufacturing method. In this case I set the tool diameter at a fairly modest 2 mm (even though a CC Red print core with a 0,6 mm diameter would be used for the 3D printing) and a wall thickness of 2.5 mm to provide a usable condition for 3D printing. Had I wanted an outcome with more complexity I could have reduced that specified tool diameter even further. The tool direction was set at Z to ensure that no overhangs would be created for the 3D printer to deal with and 316L stainless steel was included in the materials selected for the study. This is one of the solutions generated for a 316L stainless steel part using 2.5-axis machining which looked looked worthy of further investigation and potential for 3D printing. As you can see from the image there are no overhangs in the design, so I decided to export this outcome and made only very minor changes to it before using it for 3D printing. 3D Printing and Post-Processing What resulted was a very straightforward, support-free 3D print that was optimised for using Ultrafuse 316L on an S5 printer. The print was completed using the Ultrafuse 316L material profile from the Cura Marketplace with 100% solid infill, which gave a print time of just over four and a half hours. It's important to remember that scaling factors need to be applied to the size of the part at the slicing stage to take into account the shrinkage experienced through the de-bind and sinter stage. These scaling factors for the X,Y and Z axis can be found in the FASF Forward AM guidelines for this material. Some light post-processing was done on the top and bottom faces of these parts after 3D printing to smooth them down using a fine grade abrasive paper. The material is quite soft in this so-called "green" state and very little effort is needed in order to be rewarded with high quality surfaces after the de-bind and sinter process. These 3D prints were then put through the de-bind and sinter process to finish up with generatively designed 316L stainless steel parts that had been successfully manufactured using a desktop 3D printer. Conclusion So what are you waiting for? Open up Fusion 360 and become a “design explorer” using all of the tools that Generative Design offers. See how you too can combine additive and subtractive manufacturing objectives into your explorations and discover the potential benefits of using the capability of the multiple manufacturing objectives that Generative Design provides and how it can help with Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM). Also, if you are looking to create 3D printed metal parts consider investigating the BASF Forward Ultrafuse 316L option. It was very rewarding to run through this process from start to finish and look at the parts at the end with the satisfaction that I had produced my very first metal parts using an Ultimaker 3D printer! Note : The above post is an edited version of this article published as part of Autodesk University 2020 which is taking place online on 17-19th November 2020
×
×
  • Create New...