Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
lars86

Official Heated Bed Upgrade Kit: Ultimaker Original

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Beyond the announcement thread,I didn't find a thread that had some working information on upgrading an original Ultimaker with the official heated bed upgrade kit.

I just began assembling mine tonight.

First thoughts are that this is a well sorted kit! When I first saw the kit's price, I was surprised, but after being hands on with it, feel that they put a lot of value in. It is thoughtful in design, and in instructions. It improves all the shortcomings I found with the original bed: poor stability of the bed platform and the acrylic, 4 point leveling adjustment, lack of heat, ugly.

The 3 point leveling system on this new unit is very clean. The support springs are much beefier.

Flange mounted linear bearings gives you the ability to let the bearings be right where they need to be for your specific guide rod spacing (assuming they are parallel). If the platform assembly fully defines the bearing location, tolerance stacking will likely lead to some degree of over-constraint of the system, which induces bind and therefore extra friction/wear/power consumption/heat.

It looks great.

11194617_10204123868159332_1904618591851166429_o.thumb.jpg.d8c332fc74c61522b4cfae4c7d4a3c00.jpg

I gave the aluminum platform plate a quick wet sand on my granite to check flatness. All in all it was pretty good, not amazing. Give it a close inspection, paying particular attention to the linear bearing flange area. Since that is defining both bearing axes, any ding or burr could hold a bearing off angle. I'm not sure why they picked flanged bearings with big counterbores on the backside of the flange. This really reduces the surface area immediately under the four machine screws. I gave the bearing flanges a quick sanding too, and they were definitely dinged and a bit out of flat. Definitely inspect yours before installing.

IMAG1659-2.thumb.jpg.755640ec3d78dcdd6519a76f79d535ed.jpg

After a little light lubrication, I gave the new bearings a test fitting individually on the 12mm shafts. I found that while moving the bearings upwards, then reversing to move down, both hang up on the shaft. Enough so, so they can support their own weight without falling. I tried flushing one out with alcohol to make sure it was free of contaminants, then hit it with compressed air and re-lubed, but the binding is the same. Did I get bad bearings or are they cheap? Having a very smooth, reliable downward Z movement is critical for print quality.

IMAG1664_BURST003-2.thumb.jpg.7217dc5784580eb682e9f7d7883efebe.jpg

I'll add more tomorrow...

Lars

11194617_10204123868159332_1904618591851166429_o.thumb.jpg.d8c332fc74c61522b4cfae4c7d4a3c00.jpg

IMAG1659-2.thumb.jpg.755640ec3d78dcdd6519a76f79d535ed.jpg

IMAG1664_BURST003-2.thumb.jpg.7217dc5784580eb682e9f7d7883efebe.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some questions:

 

 

 

Yes, I used the exact anti-backlash nut on my UM2 which has the same heated bed. But I had to dismount the black part of the nut and mount the UM2 nut instead. And a printed adapter piece was needed.

UM2_Backlash_nut.jpg.1b990321935fa0645dc1c69f945f685a.jpg

UM2_Backlash_nut.jpg.1b990321935fa0645dc1c69f945f685a.jpg

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I used the exact anti-backlash nut on my UM2 which has the same heated bed. But I had to dismount the black part of the nut and mount the UM2 nut instead. And a printed adapter piece was needed.

UM2_Backlash_nut.jpg.1b990321935fa0645dc1c69f945f685a.jpg

So, you stuck with it? The modification and adapter were just means to mount it?

Did you notice any difference in print quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm building/sourcing one now too. Impressed with the leveling system! Got to install it in the printer still though.

Is it possible to run it without the heated bed/electronics connected, just having the platform for now?

Absolutely.

As far as I can see, you would just need to change the steps value for Z to match the new lead screw and install/adjust the new limit switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I used the exact anti-backlash nut on my UM2 which has the same heated bed. But I had to dismount the black part of the nut and mount the UM2 nut instead. And a printed adapter piece was needed.

 

So, you stuck with it? The modification and adapter were just means to mount it?

Did you notice any difference in print quality?

It's still in, yes. Difficult to say if print quality improved. I had an issue at that time which ruined the print quality (horizontal banding caused by the bang-bang mode of the heated bed). However, mounting the anti-backlash nut did not solve the issue. After the issue was solved I left the anti-backlash nut in. Quality is - hm - just perfect, as usual on my UM2... :p

The modification and the adapter were necessary as I didn't want to drill any holes into the aluminum plate.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some questions:

 

  • I know that the latest Cura has a compatible firmware build, but was wondering if using this builder would be equivalent: http://marlinbuilder.robotfuzz.com/

    I have a few other tweaks; custom extruder drive, direct drive XY, and a bunch of custom parameters for accel, jerk, etc.

  • Is there a way to make a dump of my current firmware as a backup?

 

 

Anyone?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

robotfuzz is incompatible with the pt100 found in the heated bed. However you can use this marlin builder:

https://bultimaker.bulles.eu/

Unfortunately it has MANY fewer options :(

To make a dump of your current firmware you need to know what version it is. I don't remember if you can determine it on the ulticontroller. You basically have to know where the hex file is that created it. You can get tons of old firmware versions from all the old curas here:

http://software.ultimaker.com/old/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robotfuzz is incompatible with the pt100 found in the heated bed.  However you can use this marlin builder:

https://bultimaker.bulles.eu/

Unfortunately it has MANY fewer options :(

To make a dump of your current firmware you need to know what version it is.  I don't remember if you can determine it on the ulticontroller.  You basically have to know where the hex file is that created it.  You can get tons of old firmware versions from all the old curas here:

http://software.ultimaker.com/old/

Thanks gr5!

Unfortunately, I just found that out on my own ;) The control gave me a max bed temp error and showed the wrong idle temp.

I flashed the stock firmware via Cura, and everything looks good, bed heats... I just can't use it because of my direct drive.

How does that builder compare to the official firmware base? Would I be better off editing the official? It's been forever since I compiled a firmware build and remember very little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you could also help me better understand adding the files to the Arduino environment.

 

Install the arduino software IDE/toolset v23 (Some configurations also work with 1.x.x) http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Software

Download the Marlin firmware https://github.com/ErikZalm/Marlin/tree/Marlin_v1 Use the "Download Zip" button on the right.

For gen6/gen7 and sanguinololu the Sanguino directory in the Marlin dir needs to be copied to the arduino environment. copy ArduinoAddons\Arduino_x.x.x\sanguino \hardware\Sanguino

Start the arduino IDE. Select Tools -> Board -> Arduino Mega 2560 or your microcontroller Select the correct serial port in Tools ->Serial Port Open Marlin.pde

It just says copy the files. Copy them where?

I have this similar folder: Program Files (x86)\Arduino\hardware\arduino\avr

But copying the files there would overwrite boards.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • I know that the latest Cura has a compatible firmware build, but was wondering if using this builder would be equivalent: http://marlinbuilder.robotfuzz.com/

    I have a few other tweaks; custom extruder drive, direct drive XY, and a bunch of custom parameters for accel, jerk, etc.

 

 

The best thing you maybe can do is to download the UMO HBK Marlin version from the Github repository and modifiy the configuration.h file with your tweaks. Then you can directly build and upload the firmware with the Arduino Software. In order to find out how you have to modify the configuration.h file you can download the zip file of your current configuration from Robotfuzz-Marlinbuilder which also includes a configuration.h file. But you cannot use this file directly out of the same reasons you already figured out.

If you are working with Windows I can recommend Winmerge for comparing the two configuration.h files and move information/settings from one to the other.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • I know that the latest Cura has a compatible firmware build, but was wondering if using this builder would be equivalent: http://marlinbuilder.robotfuzz.com/

    I have a few other tweaks; custom extruder drive, direct drive XY, and a bunch of custom parameters for accel, jerk, etc.

 

 

The best thing you maybe can do is to download the UMO HBK Marlin version from the Github repository and modifiy the configuration.h file with your tweaks. Then you can directly build and upload the firmware with the Arduino Software. In order to find out how you have to modify the configuration.h file you can download the zip file of your current configuration from Robotfuzz-Marlinbuilder which also includes a configuration.h file. But you cannot use this file directly out of the same reasons you already figured out.

If you are working with Windows I can recommend Winmerge for comparing the two configuration.h files and move information/settings from one to the other.

Agreed. I went ahead last night and modified the new official release. It's really not bad at all, thanks to the write-ups by members of our community. Thanks GR5!

I tried to do a PID autotune on my bed last night and ran into two issues. First was a timeout. It was definitely heating, but seemed to struggle to hit the commanded 90* from ambient. I immediately restarted the processes and it seemed to be working.

Then I decided that I wanted to preheat the nozzle while that was happening, so on the UC, I turned it on. The set point showed up but the nozzle didn't begin to heat, seemingly from a conflict with Pronterface having control. The Bed autotune continued for a couple minutes, but then gave me a heating failed error, which also showed up on the UC display. Not sure if that was my fault.

Also, during the autotune, the bed temp display in pronterface didn't update in realtime like it has with the nozzle in the past. Not sure why.

Man, I forgot how aggressive the stock XY accel settings are! The Z accel of 100 is pretty soft though, and 300 has worked well so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never tried to autotune the bed. In bang-bang mode (P=infinite I=0 D=0) it keeps a very steady temperature. But some people reported problems with bang-bang mode where their nozzle (go figure?) changed temp too much. So I recommend you stick with PID mode for the bed and not alter the existing PID values. They work fine.

My bed can get up to 100C in a 20C room but has trouble getting to 110C. Sometimes it never quite reaches 110C. If I put a box over the top and cover the front then it can get to 110C no problem (and the ambient air inside is around 50-60C).

There two different gcodes to change the bed temp - one is "do it and return now" and the other is "do it and don't accept more gcodes until you reach the temp". Possibly pronterface used the wrong gcode? It seems unlikely and I *thought* I've messed with bed temp and nozzle temp at the same time with pronterface but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the biggest shortcoming I've found so far is the bed platform's bending stiffness. 4mm aluminum plate cantilevered out 12" just isn't up to my standard for stiffness.

Luckily, it's a pretty easy modification with the way it is designed.

I'm thinking about mounting two pieces of aluminum angle stock on the underside, so that it spans from a front corner, to the inside edge of a linear bearing. This will really improve the stiffness.

http://www.mcmaster.com/#8982k91/=x6puu3

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that there is a problem. The bed holds it's position for months of printing without needing re-leveling even though sometimes I have to wack the parts off the bed using my palm as a hammer and a putty knife to apply the pressure with enough force to slide the printer a foot across the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that there is a problem.  The bed holds it's position for months of printing without needing re-leveling even though sometimes I have to wack the parts off the bed using my palm as a hammer and a putty knife to apply the pressure with enough force to slide the printer a foot across the table.

So, you are describing the repeatability of the leveling system / support springs. The 4mm platform is the base for that, so yes, it can stand up to a beating without plastically deforming, but that doesn't speak to its dynamic stability.

When we are trying to print say a 0.1mm layer height, how much of a deviation in Z height of the nozzle do you think it takes to either swell or contract the width of the bead you are laying down? I would guess that even a 25% change would produce a visible artifact. That is only 25 microns, or around 0.001" for us yanks.

Not only do you have an interaction between the nozzle/filament bead and the part/bed which can cause movement, or excite vibrations, but also the rapid changes in Z height from layer change or Z hop moves. To a lessor extent, you even have the printed part's weight increasing throughout the print, and adding to deflection of the bed.

The temptation is to print right at the front of the bed, in the middle... which is literally the worst place to print for machine rigidity. The best bet would be at either back corner, where deflection of the bed, lash from the Z bearings, and flex of the 8mm and 6mm rods is minimized.

Here is a quick video to illustrate specifically the cantilevered deflection of the bed platform. I'll check again after my modifications sometime next week. (I'm going to the RAPID conference in LA early next week, woohoo!!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to whip up a Solidworks static simulation to illustrate the concept. I used the STP file for the build platform from the Github repository and applied 6061-T6 as the material.

Here is the intended modification. Twin .75"x.75" aluminum angle, bolted to the underside:

5a330dd8dd000_BracedModel.thumb.jpg.df3c812de29d8036e6ff4b5fbd2b5c33.jpg

For the simulation, I simply fixed the linear bearing mounting features ( a simplification, but a good representation), applied gravity, and applied a 1lb point force near the front of the bed.

Here are the displacement charts with a 50x exaggeration and equal color scaling:

Original:

Original.thumb.jpg.1a92036b5812c73a0f56c3810ecff782.jpg

Braced:

Braced.thumb.jpg.e05ab5c258bce81ccd8b8757ca3cb3b7.jpg

The braces reduce deflection by nearly 90% in this situation. Are these numbers directly applicable to printing? No. Is a stiffer platform going to give you more consistent prints? Yes.

5a330dd8dd000_BracedModel.thumb.jpg.df3c812de29d8036e6ff4b5fbd2b5c33.jpg

Original.thumb.jpg.1a92036b5812c73a0f56c3810ecff782.jpg

Braced.thumb.jpg.e05ab5c258bce81ccd8b8757ca3cb3b7.jpg

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems more like the bottom of the nozzle going over the print of the plastic itself... Sometimes with a lot of retractions etc it creates "hills" on top of the print that are a bit higher than where the head is positioned at. If it moves over it bounces the bed up and down.

I'd have to hear the actual sound being made to compare it to what I've experienced a multitude of times, but it sure looks the same visually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a conversation a while ago where someone was complaining about how its canter-levered out and not rigid enough then someone from Ultimaker R&D mentioned that they tried having it supported from both ends but the quality was worse.

But it agree with Blizz, it tends to only judder while going over bits like curling and "hills"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Our picks

    • Introducing Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Beta
      Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Beta is available. It comes with new features, bug fixes, and UX improvements. We would really like to have your feedback on it to make our stable release as good as it can be. As always, you can download the beta for free from our website, for Windows, MacOS, and Linux.
        • Like
      • 95 replies
    • Print Core CC | Red for Ruby
      Q: For some users, abrasive materials may be a new subject matter. Can you explain what it is that makes a material abrasive when you are not sure which print core to use?
      A: Materials which are hard in a solid piece (like metals, ceramics and carbon fibers) will generally also wear down the nozzle. In general one should assume...
        • Like
      • 30 replies
    • "Back To The Future" using Generative Design & Investment Casting
      Designing for light-weight parts is becoming more important, and I’m a firm believer in the need to produce lighter weight, less over-engineered parts for the future. This is for sustainability reasons because we need to be using less raw materials and, in things like transportation, it impacts the energy usage of the product during it’s service life.
        • Like
      • 12 replies
×

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!