This guide highlights some of the choices in deploying 3D printers into maker spaces, and in more formal fabrication spaces.
ea_advisory-3dprinting1_1.pdf | 229 KB |
ea_advisory-3dprinting1_1.pdf | 229 KB |
Authors |
|
---|---|
Version | 1.1 |
Last Revised | 13-Nov-2019 |
Status | Initial Release |
Document Type | Single Topic Guidance |
Audience Level |
|
One aspect of a Harvard education is to enable students to participate in addressing open-ended human challenges. In addition, programs that have strong research faculty can enable an additional component where students and curriculum are informed by research methodologies as well as advancements in science and engineering, thus creating a mind set for innovation and critical inquiry.
3D printing has become a mainstay of ‘maker spaces’ and is commonly used in disciplines such as architecture, engineering, and physics. Harvard University has enabled the use of 3D modeling and printing on a large scale in the Graduate School of Design and at the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and on a smaller scale in the FAS Physics Department, the Wyss Institute, the Ceramics Program at the Allston ArtLab, and projects supported by the FAS VPAL.
3D printing technology has been around since the late 1980’s, but has become much more accessible in the past decade due to patents expiring and the advancement of lower cost and easier to use electronics (i.e. Arduino and similar platforms). The accessibility of lower cost platforms has generated a rapid growth in the advancement of newer 3D printing technologies and materials. Providing this capability can be accomplished in a number of ways, with varying degrees of formality. This guide highlights some of the choices in deploying 3D printers into maker spaces and in more formal fabrication spaces.
With the exception of the most casual and ad-hoc maker environments, particularly if student performance is measured by the use of 3D models, we recommend that deployments of 3D printing capabilities lean towards formal styles of deployment.
3D printing represents one of the newer methods of fabricating three-dimension objects. It uses an additive process where a material (typically a polymer but metal is becoming more accessible) is laid down layer-by-layer to build a part. Some classic fabrication methods rely on subtractive manufacturing processes by removing material to create the desired shape out of materials such as wood, metal, plastics, etc. Other additive processes, such as casting and molding, have a higher setup time and/or tooling cost and are better suited towards larger volumes. A key advantage of 3D printing is the ability to manipulate materials in fine detail to represent complex shapes with relatively little production complexity. 3D printing shares limitations with other fabrication techniques such as cost of materials, capital equipment costs, and time to completion. Additional key limitations for 3D printing include the size of the intended model, the characteristics of the materials used, and the overall strength of the part. For small models with complex geometries, 3D printing is an ideal technique.
For the purposes of this guidance, we propose two types of 3D Printer deployments:
3D printers generally represent a smaller safety concern than most robotic and fabrication tools, allowing ad-hoc deployments. However, the materials used for 3D printing and post-processing of the parts represent a potential health concern. Each different 3D printing technology has its own health and safety concerns and should be considered prior to scoping out the printers for the environment in which they will be use. For example, the most popular 3D printing process, fused deposition modeling (FDM), is the heating of plastics to a softened state, then extruding it through a nozzle onto a platform in a desired shape, layer by layer. Both the melting and the impact have the potential of releasing gasses and microparticles into the environment. Few studies have been done to determine the appropriate level of concern for different materials, but prudence indicates careful ventilation should be provided. This article sounds a cautionary note.
Technology | Description | Hazard(s) |
---|---|---|
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) | Softened thermoplastic extruded layer-by-layer |
|
Stereolithograpy (SLA) | Parts built layer-by-layer using a laser or light to selectively cure photopolymer |
|
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)/Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) | Powdered plastic or metal fused together layer-by-layer with a laser and binder |
|
Polyjet printing | Prints out a layer of photopolymer like an inkjet and then cures the entire layer with a UV light |
|
The introduction of 3D printing capabilities has followed the usual progression for new technologies; single instances for experimental use, more formalized ‘maker spaces’ for casual use, and ‘fabrication labs’ for operational use of a service. Regardless of the intended scale of use, there are several processes that should be considered when deploying 3D printing capabilities. In general, deployments should consider the most formal deployment capability, consistent with the mission of the organization.
Site preparation includes not only the selection and installation of 3D printers, but also includes providing work surfaces, infrastructure such as electricity and networks, ventilation, and safety shielding.
Staffing considerations range from self-service with on-line training guides to formal staffing with trained and certified personnel who can manage the work environment and support students and their projects. Staffing considerations should also include the level of hazards for the machines to be deployed.
Provisioning considerations include ensuring that only approved materials are used, but also that students and staff are fully aware of the site’s standards, policies, and guidelines. Students and staff are also provided guidance on the preparation of model data, use of printer management tools, and techniques for solving problems that arise.
Operational considerations include ensuring 3D printers and stock materials are being properly used, that access to devices is fairly allocated, and issues that arise are resolved.
Maintenance considerations include site cleanliness, printer maintenance, and waste management.
Activity | Maker Space | Considerations | Fabrication Space | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Site Preparation |
|
|
|
||
Staffing |
|
|
|
||
Provisioning |
|
|
|
||
Operations |
|
|
|
||
Maintenance |
|
|
|
When considering deploying these technologies, safety must come first. The following recommendations promote a safe and effective 3D printing capability, regardless of the scale of deployment.
Users should be prepared to use 3D printers with properly modeled printer code and with proper materials to produce the desired models. To the extent that they interact directly with printers, they should be aware of standard procedures, and know how to contact support resources when issues arise.
Printing costs vary widely depending on the complexity and size of the model and the type of materials to be used. For example, the GSD has found that PLA plastics has a per-square-foot cost of $26 as opposed to UV-cured resin which has a per-square-foot cost of $748.
Expectations around timing of producing models must also be set. For example, GSD has found that producing one square foot model on a Polyjet printer takes about 50 hours, while the same on a Dremel printer takes 100 hours. When considering that students may need to deliver finished models at set times in the school year, access to printing resources must be managed. Post-processing should also be included in the time to receive a part.
The Harvard Graduate School of Design maintains these Usage Policies for self-service 3D printing:
Online Queue Submission Rules
Online submission files may be rejected for the following reasons: