The Discrete Practices of 3D Printing Submitted on behalf of: Daniel Southwick, Dr. Matt Ratto Prepared for: Autodesk Research as part of a Mitacs Research Partnership

1

Section One – Introduction

Current discourse around 3D printing has tended to focus on its ability to produce physical manifestations of the digital. While this narrative had helped to popularize these technologies, relying on the powerful and appealing notion of being able to “turn digital dreams into physical realities”, it has also meant that the dominant perception of the technology has been oversimplified. Those who have only read about 3D printers or have only had a basic or controlled experience with them tend to see it as something that is purely digital, whereas users with experience are conscious of the fact that the technology is a combination of both the digital and the material.

Yet, understanding 3D printing is more than just coming to terms with its materiality. In this paper, the printing practices and processes used by nine different individuals with a wide variety of backgrounds, skill levels, and use cases, are presented. In examining the workflows of these individuals and the various factors that shape them, it is argued that 3D printing needs to be approached as a series of contextually driven discrete practices rather than uniformly.

Section Two of this paper is dedicated to providing an overview of the study and the nine interviews that were conducted. A more detailed summary of each of the interviews can be found in Appendices 1-8, with each of the participants answers broken down into five categories: Experience and Background, Design, Processing and Printing, and Going Forward. The overview seeks to provide a sense of the methodology used as well as the background and use cases of each of the participants, whereas the appendices seek to highlight the individual practices the participants have developed and the factors that have influenced them. Section Three examines various factors that influence the workflows of the nine participants, and explores the connection between context and 3D printing. In the final section, suggestions are made for the development of tools based on the notion of the discrete practices through modularization and a focus on interconnectivity.

The central conclusion to be drawn from this research needs to be the diversity of these systems. Each of the nine participants interviewed could be called experts in 3D printing in their own right, yet the practices that they develop are a reflection of their own context rather than larger themes and ideals within the technology. If 3D printing is ever to be come wildly adopted, or at least a ubiquitous tool for design, the complexity of the various contexts it can occupy needs to be more effectively addressed.

2

Section Two – Participants

For this research paper nine participants were interviewed over a 6-month period. These individuals were selected based on their expertise in the field of 3d printing, their current research and/or occupation, and their potential value for insight into future developments in 3d printing practices and processes. Recruitment was conducted through both professional networking and a targeted call for participants using popular online forums. Both recruitment methods received positive feedback, and interviews were scheduled prioritizing convenience for the participants. Five participants engaged directly in the Critical Making Lab, two participants were interviewed via Skype, and two participants were interviewed in situ.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant, or teams of participants, ranging from 30-90 minutes. Pre-determined questions were necessary for basic demographic and technical information, however due to the nature of the participants’ individual work and personal interests, and informal discourse was often the focus of conversation. When possible, participants were asked to provide specific examples of their work in order to structure the narrative of the interview and to provide more concrete articulations of their practices and challenges.

Overall, all of the participants were experts in their individual practices and able to appropriately articulate their processes. Of the individuals interviewed, both hobbyist and industrial/professional users were represented, as well as a wide array of hardware and software. A full list of the technologies discussed is available in Appendix 9.

Participants were numbered based upon the order in which they were interviewed and to provide anonymity. As described below, each approached 3D printing from their own unique background and focus, which directly influenced their personal practices, perspectives, and uses of the technology. Further details on each participant can be found in their corresponding appendices:

• Participant One (Appendix 1) is a hobbyist user who uses 3D printing to produce small objects for friends and family, as well as parts for 3D printers.

• Participant Two (Appendix 2) runs a 3D printing business that produces full colour parts for clients.

• Participant Three (Appendix 3) is a hobbyist who predominantly uses 3D printing to produce parts for 3D printers.

• Participant Four (Appendix 4) is a novice who has recently begun to use 3D printing as a method of prototyping parts for his research.

• Participant Five (Appendix 5) is an industrial designer that uses 3D printing to produce prototypes of designs.

• Participants Six and Seven (Appendix 6) are designers that use 3D printing for small-scale production.

• Participant Eight (Appendix 7) is a 3D printing specialist and hobbyist who has worked on a wide spectrum of projects.

3

• Participant Nine (Appendix 8) is business-focused 3D printing expert who works in high end hardware and software.

Qualitative data from each participant was collected from research observations, and recorded interviews (for which consent was obtained). The interview material was analyzed in order to form themes and recommendations. Based on the analysis, further described in the following section, participants’ responses were coded into five broad themes: Experience and Background, Design, Processing and Printing, and Going Forward. The codified data was then further examined for narrative elements in order to produce the factors for consideration in Section 3.

4

Section Three - Analysis

In attempting to define the practices around 3D printing through these participant interviews a clear, but surprising, result emerged - 3D printing is not comprised of a single series of practices, but rather a series of discrete practices that are contextually driven. Each of the participants approaches the technology from wildly different perspectives. While their goals were universally the same - creating a 3D dimensional object from a digital design file - the values that they embedded into them and their processes are uniquely theirs. By examining the interviews closely, five factors emerged that clearly illustrate how and why these discrete practices develop. This list is by no means exhaustive, as introducing new participants might lead to other factors, nor is it meant to be hierarchal or linear in nature.

Factor One: Types of Printers

With the exception of Participant Four, who is new to the process, everyone that was interviewed spoke to the importance of designing with a specific type of printer in mind. By tying a design to a specific material process, the constraints that characterize it can be addressed. In FDM, for example, overhangs require support material or the feature will “droop” or “sag”. For the majority of the participants, support material is not something that want to use, as it tends to damage the finish/fit of the part as well as taking more material and time. So, they either avoid overhangs all together or design the feature with shallow angles to minimize the sagging. Conversely, with SLA, overhang is not an issue. Participant Five, who is an industrial designer, characterized the considerations that go into SLA prints as similar to those that go into injection moulding; the prominent disparity between the two being resolution, and consequently the inability for SLA to handle certain kinds of features. The challenge for those just beginning to use 3D printing, as Participant Four can attest to, is learning what these constrains are and how to design for them.

Many of the participants highlighted the value of experimentation and/or hands-on engagement with the technology has had on their design process; there is more, however, to this than simply developing criteria - or a do’s and don’ts list - for working with a type of printer. There is a disconnect, as several of the participants pointed out, between the digital design file and the material part. Each printing process “manifests” a design in its own way. By working with the printer over a long period of time, one develops not only a sense of its specific characteristics and “limitations” but also how it produces “whole parts” rather than just abstracted features. It is, as Participants Two and Eight pointed out, about coming to terms with the material realities of the technology and the various types of printers that make it up.

Factor Two: Tool Chains

Each participant had their own preferences for the kind of software and hardware that they used. These preferences tended to be a reflection of their audience, use cases, and access, and in turn have a large impact on their practices. Participants Three and Eight, for example, use a variety of free CAD programs. Depending on the nature of the project, if for

5

example it is “mechanical” or “more free form”, they will use a program with features more conducive to the work being done. Conversely, Participant Five, who has a preference for ProEngineer, selects programs based upon both industry and organization requirements. Furthermore while Participant Five does little to no pre-processing of the design file before it is printed, Participants Three and Eight have incorporated the use of tools such as NetFabb into their process in order to address inconsistencies/issues, namely the generating of unmanfold objects, that exist within these free CAD programs.

The software used to process a design for printing can also have an effect on practices. Participants Six, Seven, and Eight have modified their design practices for FDM printers based on a shift in the slicing programs they use. Participants Six and Seven have started to use Simplify3D, whereas Participant Eight is using the native program for the Afinia H480. In both of these cases, the participants went from designing around overhangs in order to avoid support material, to incorporating them into their design based on functional needs. This is a result of the kinds of support material these programs generate; because it can peel off so easily - and thus not damage the fit/finish of the part - there is no longer reason to avoid its usage.

Finally, the printers themselves play an important role in practice development. Each printer has unique - both in terms of the technology it uses (see Factor One) as well individual scale. The majority of the participants spoke of the importance of “dialling” machines in and ensuring they are calibrated. This is often taken an additional step further, as the flaws or issues with a specific printer are taken into account. Participant Two, for example, spoke of how the printer he uses has issues with printing objects in the lower corners of its bed. Most of the participants, especially those who use a single printer for the majority of their work, develop a deep understanding of the individual physical qualities of the machine they are working on and plan around them.

In discussing their practices, the majority of participants often referred to them as being in a state of flux. Each new project can lead to the introduction of a new piece of hardware or software that changes their whole approach. For most, as Participant Three suggests, their tool chain it is about getting a project to work with what is currently at hand, and adapting when the need arises.

Factor Three: Use Cases

3D printed parts can serve many functions. During his interview, Participant Five spoke of the difference between “prototypes” and “mock-ups”. While using other terminology, almost every participant drew a distinction between “functional” and “aesthetic” parts in terms of how they are approached. Typically, it becomes a question of how to deal with “mechanical” properties for functional part and how to make a part match “the image I have in my brain” for aesthetic parts.

When a part is meant to serve some kind of functional role, the “forces” that will be acting on it need to be addressed. How this is handled highly depends on the type of printer that will be used. In FDM, for example, the thickness of the walls will be increased in order to improve the overall strength of the part. Additionally, when the part is being processed it might receive what Participants One, Six, and Seven refer to as a “strange” orientation in order to

6

ensure the part remains true to the design, and to address any issues with sheer force acting on the layers of the print.

A special subset of functional parts are the “rapid prototypes”. These parts have generally been designed with another production technology, usually something “mass” like injection moulding, in mind. These parts are 3D printed in order to test various configurations before the tools for the final product are made. Participant Five, who frequently does this kind of work, explains that in the case of rapid prototypes he often needs to do “things that have no bearing in actual production”, such as removing/resdesigning features and over engineering specific aspects, in order to be able to print and test a realistic version of the part. Moreover, as part of this process he ends up having to create multiple iterations of the part - which are functionally the same - in order to deal with minor changes in the fit of the part as seasons progress.

For aesthetic objects, as Participant Eight notes, the primary concern revolves around how a specific type of printer manifests a part. Each type of printer has different characteristic (see Factor One) that will change the visual aesthetics of the end piece. The material realities, then, have to be considered and understood; otherwise a break can occur from between what is “pictured” and what is “produced”. These aesthetic objects also need to be “seen” as part of this process. During his interview Participant Five discussed how he had once produced a mock-up for a client using SLA; the part ended up being rejected, as he had taken out features in order to allow it print but the client though this would be the end product.

At the root of these use cases is the question “what do these parts need to do?”. For the majority of the participants this acts as their starting point. Once they have established this, they are left to negotiate realities of the technology.

Factor Four: Audience

During their interviews, the majority of the participants commented that there is a difference between parts for “them” - that is objects they will be personally using - and for “other” people. The simple difference between the two is “quality”, with parts being made for others receiving more attention. There are, however, other underlying considerations, such as expectations, economics, and institutional needs, that get embedded into these objects depending upon who will be seeing and/or using them.

In discussing their process, Participants Six and Seven characterized a “successful” print in multiple ways. If the print is for a client they look for something “complete” that matches the specifications they have been given and their digital design. Conversely, if it is for internal use a success depends on what the print was suppose to accomplish. If, for example, they are printing a part to examine a new feature they have added to a design, it can stop or fail midway through and still be considered a success as long as that aspect is present. There is a real value, especially from a design perspective, within these “successful fails” that an outside party might not fully understand or necessarily appreciate. What it comes down to is expectations. Most of the participants noted that those outside of the printing process expect a “complete or finished” part; whereas those who are internal to the process have a much wider perspective of how the technology can be used.

7

Cost is another important factor when it comes to who will be using or seeing the part. Participants One and Three, for example, are hobbyists. For them, the entire cost of producing a part, including the purchasing of the machine and the materials, falls to them. While both of them care about the quality of the part, they have developed ways to make parts more “efficiently” in order to reduce the cost of printing. On a similar note, both Participants Five and Eight talk about using the “right” technology for a client. There is a large disparity in cost between printing a part in FDM as opposed to SLA. Depending on the client, and their budget, it is important to match their needs with type of printer. When working for a large client, for example, Participant Five will prototype on FDM machines, but will present them with “higher quality” SLA prints towards the end of the project, as this is something they can afford and which has value to them. Cost, then, needs to be understood as something that influences the development of a part, as it changes the kinds of considerations that go into both the design and the technology that will be used.

Finally, as has been mentioned briefly above, who the project is for can change the approaches used. When creating a part for themselves, the participants used the practices that were most appropriate to the project. However, there are some clients that require the use of specific software or have specific requirements that must be meet. Participant Five specifically pointed to the automotive sector as an example of this, as all of their contracts contain the expectation that all of the design work will be done in a program of their choosing.

Who a part is for - be it personal use or for another person/organization - can deeply influence the kinds of considerations that go into it. For most of the participants, there is a certain degree of fluidity for the parts they make for themselves. Mistakes or “strangeness” within the finished parts speak to the process that created it. The same approach is not taken when making a part for someone else. The goal here tends to be polish and meeting any specific requirement they might have.

Factor Five: Access to Resources

The participants all had access to different kinds of hardware and software. Participant Three, for example, has three FDM machines at his home, but limited access to different types of printers or professional grade CAD programs. All of his processes are defined by easy access to FDM printers and free software. It is thus important to understand and address the contexts and settings in which work is being done.

While being interviewed, Participant Four specifically addressed the institutional context in which he found himself. The lab that he works provides him access to Solidworks, which has become his default design program, and through the larger institution he has access to a SLA printer. This access, however, is subject to a high degree of cost and a wait period due to the fact that a technician needs to be scheduled to operate the machine. This meant that until he gained access to an FDM machine in another lab, the processes he had developed had evolved around scarcity of printing time; a less than ideal scenario considering he is attempting to prototype parts for a robot. In contrast, Participants Six and Seven have a similar set up to Participant Three, but in addition to access to three FDM machines at home and at work they also have access to professional grade CAD programs. For them, prototyping a design is based

8

around multiple iterations and printing dozens - if not hundreds - of parts. This simple shift in access vastly changes the manner in which these participants engaged in 3D printing.

These five factors point to a larger theme brought up by Participant Nine - “owning your process”. When setting up a 3D printing system for a client, one of the most important factors for him is to ensure that it reflects the needs and wants of that organization. This is the right ideal to strive for. 3D printing is essentially just a series of practices and processes that have loosely grouped together based upon a similarity of technologies. There is no universal approach that will work for all of them. Instead, tools need to be developed that allow individuals - and organizations - to own their process by addressing the various factors that govern it.

9

Section Four - Suggestions and Conclusions

3D printing needs to be understood and approached as a series of discrete practices rather than a singularly united activity. The nine participants who were interviewed herein have developed individualized practices based upon their own contexts. While overlap does exist, namely in regards to larger technical considerations, such as the limitations of certain types of printers, the workflows of each of the participants are such that they could not be grafted into another space without losing what centrally defines them. More importantly, doing so would also ignore the factors that make their spaces contextually unique.

Embracing this notion that 3D printing is a series of discrete practices allows us to shift the focus of tool development away from the ideal of a universal platform, a “one-size fits all” solution, to a more modularized system that formalizes the interconnectivities between individual practices and/or processes that have formed. Not only does this allow individuals and/or organizations to define to their own contexts, but it also allows for a more fluid system that can account for both experimentation, which many of the participants saw as pivotal to the development of their workflows, and the introduction of new factors.

These tools, however, need to do more than just establish a system; they also need to provide east entry-points and methods for evaluation. Many of the participants commented that there is often a steep learning curb, which many of them attributed to the disconnect that exists between a digital design and the material parts that are produced. By providing information, either in the form of style guides or data sheets, these tools could help individuals or organizations more effectively design for the resources they have at hand. Moreover, they also have the potential to help find, as Participant Nine referred to it, the “sweet spots” of the technology by providing resources that reflect considerations and solutions in terms or what kinds of problems are best suited to being 3D printed.

The “low-hanging fruit” for these kinds of tools in terms of technical implementation would be the development of situationally-driven wikis and layered decision trees. The wikis would allow individuals/organizations to lay out their workflows and provide details about their various components. The data in these entries would contain technical information, as well as explain how, why, and when these resources are used. Connecting resources and the wikis together would be the layered decision trees. Each layer of the decision tree would correspond to a specific aspect of 3D printing and the resources that comprise it, and these layers would be interconnected though decision points influenced by multiple factors. In providing this kind of structure, these trees produce multiple points of entry, as each layer is a potential starting point that can help those new to the technology by providing a resource for navigating the context they are in. A more technically complex tool would be possible, but would require integrating various aspects of the tool into multiple programs.

The biggest challenge going forward for this work is engagement. Participant Nine’s point concerning “owning a process” works on two levels. Firstly, for 3D printing to be successfully deployed it needs to be contextually driven; every organization or individual has a series of factors that govern and shape the manner in which they work. Simply dropping a system into place that ignores these unique contexts will never work, as there will always be

10

gaps or breaking points that the organization/individual will press up against as they try to work. Secondly, the organization or individual needs to be an active part of the system. Customizing can only accomplish so much; those who are using the system must embrace it and make it part of their workflow if it is to be come of real use. In developing these tools that speak to the fact that 3D printing is a series of discrete practice, then, it is of equal importance that they allow for both a contextually understanding of a space as well ensuring those who use them feel as if they remain part of the process.

11

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Participant One 1. Experience and Background Participant One is a machinist living in the Seattle area. When asked to characterize his skill level in the world of 3D printing he identified himself as an “advanced hobbyist”. He uses this terminology to denote the fact that while he has the knowledge base to make his own printers and his own models, his engagement with the technology is predominantly mechanical. The fact that he is “not an electrician, electrical engineer, or programmer”, and as such does not “dive” into the firmware or make custom electronics means that he is not comfortable referring to himself as a “complete expert”. In discussing his background as a machinist, Participant One commented that his prior experience has influenced not only his perspective of the technology, but his original interest in 3D printing as a hobby. Around 10 years ago, when he was completing a college degree in Manufacturing Engineering, he was particularly drawn to the classes on CNC machining, material properties, and injection moulding. This ultimately led to him to a career as a machinist, and familiarity with 3-axis moving gantries being controlled by G-code. When consumer grade 3D printers started hitting the market 5-6 years ago, he and his younger brother decided to purchase a kit and build a printer, as it looked like a fun and interesting hobby. While their first kit proved to be a “horrible” experience, due to the poor design of the printer and its accompanying software, he found the potential capacities of the technology quite interesting. As a machinist, unlike a traditional hobbyist who may view a 3D printer as a “mystery”, for him there was nothing fundamentally new, but it did represent a “different way of putting things together”. It was this “different” take that drove his interest and made him pursue 3D printing as a hobby, though he does note that he likes to think he would have been interested in 3D printing even if he did not have his particular professional background.

2. Design The majority of the models that Participant One prints are of his own design. When he first got his printer, there was a phase in which he used websites such as Thingiverse to download STLs, but their consumerist nature ultimately lead him to become more reliant on models he personally produced. This was not a difficult transition for him as he was able to draw on both his machinist background, as well as 15 years of experience using various CAD programs, to create the models. Currently, he uses Rhino for of his projects, stating that it has a good price point and functionality for a hobbyist user. When asked about how 3D printing affects his design process, Participant One commented he has developed an active focus on including 3D printing’s unique factors into his designs rather than designing a part that “fits the bill” and then worrying about how it is going to be made after the fact. To illustrate how these considerations “bleed into” his work, Participant One pointed out several features of a small puzzle tube he designed for his parents:

• The edge that connects the tube to large flat base had been filleted to address potential weaknesses between they layers; • There are no long “featureless features” - the body of the tube has text breaking up the surface to ensure that there are variations which helps with the overall strength of the object; and,

12

• Most importantly, the dimensions of the tube are even multiples of the extrusion thickness and layer height. This means, for example, if the extrusion were set to 0.4mm the walls of the tube would measure 0.8mm or 1.2mm. This improves the strength of the object as well as its overall appearance and quality.

The challenge that comes with implementing these features is twofold. First, there needs to

be a clear sense of how the object is going to be used. If the object is going to be ‘hidden’ and the overall appearance of it is unimportant, a larger extrusion thickness and layer height can be used; whereas if it is a gift like the tube, or more visible, a smaller extrusion thickness and layer height would be used. The “quality levels” of the print, then, need to be firmly established before the design can be started. Second, note-taking becomes an integral part of the process. Rhino allows Participant One to leave himself detailed notes on his design so that when he goes to process them he knows what kinds of settings he should be using. A final point that Participant One brought up was the importance of measuring. When working on a design he routinely measures everything to make sure there are no problems with any of the dimensions, and that the tolerance will work. This is a practice/skill set he has brought over from his work as a machinist in order to ensure that everything he prints actually works as intended. 3. Processing and Printing Upon completing a design, Participant One begins the process of readying it for printing. The first step in this process is to ensure that the design is manifold. This is partially due to the fact that, on occasion, Rhino has issues producing a good mesh for printing. Since Rhino has limited repair tools for this kind of work, Participant One tends to use NetFabb for any minor issues and Z-Brush when the design requires a complete re-skin as a result of any “nasty vertices”. After finishing any repair, the dimensions are double-checked and corrections are made if needed. Next the design is brought into Cura or Repetier Host to be positioned and sliced. For most prints this is a fairly straightforward process. After checking his notes on a design, Participant One determines what the extrusion thickness and layer height should be, and then tries to orientate the model in such a way that support material is not needed. Some designs, however, require more consideration depending on on the how part that is ultimately produced will be used. If layer sheer force, tactile strength, and part compression are factors that need to be considered, the orientation of the design would need to be based around having the part’s layers angling away from stress points. As a general rule of thumb, when it comes to these kinds of prints Participant One tries to find the point that will be under the most stress and then rotate the orientation of the design so that the layers will be running on a 45 degree angle from it to prevent layer splitting (Figure One). The final step before kicking off the printer is examining a layer preview. This is to ensure that no errors have occurred along the way, and to give Participant One a final chance to make any changes either to the design or how it has been processed. Once the print has started, he watches the first few layers to ensure they are adhering to the bed, and periodically checks in on it every 30 minutes or so to make sure nothing goes wrong. The printer itself, both it terms of the individual printer Participant One uses as well as how printers function in general, also play a role in this process. Participant One uses a Mendel Max 2.0. This particular model prints on a glass bed, and Participant One owns three, each with its own characteristics such as low points, that need to be considered when an design is being

13

positioned in Cura or Repetier-Host. Additionally, when attempting to print a design that has delicate features or small walls, the heat from the printer head and cooling time of the plastic need to be considered in order to prevent the part from warping. While some slicing programs have options in place to that attempt to solve these problems, Participant One has found that is better to print two models at the same time, which moves the head off the model and gives time for the plastic to cool. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects

Once a print has finished, Participant One gives it a chance to cool and then pops it off the bed either using his hand or a sharp blade. He then carefully cuts off any “strings” hanging from the model. He notes that he doesn’t bother sanding or painting any of the parts he produces as he likes the aesthetic of seeing the “lines” and how they feel. 5. Going Forward

When asked to discuss the biggest challenges or issues facing 3D printing, Participant One suggested that there is a lack of “a sense of spatial awareness”. What he meant by this was that there is a tendency for people to have a sense of what they want printed, but when it comes times to design it specifically for the 3D environment, they have no ability to do so within the confines of the technology. For him then, even if one was willing to argue that the printers are ready for a large commercial audience, the designs being produced for them are not. More work needs to be done, both at an educational level and at a tool level, to address this “spatial awareness” that he speaks of.

14

Appendix 2 - Participant Two 1. Experience and Background Participant Two is the owner and operator of a 3D printing service bureau in the Southeastern United States. He first became involved in 3D printing around two years ago while working in an administrative role at a local science museum. As part of the museum’s collection they had both a Z-Corp colour printer and a Makerbot Thing-o-matic. These printers were operated as both pedagogical tools, teaching kids and adults about “future” technologies, as well as a revenue generation on-demand 3D printing service. After spending several months learning the ins and outs of these machines and seeing the volume of sales the museum was doing, Participant Two decided to start his own business. Initially, his plan was to develop a mall-kiosk, but the overhead of operating in that kind space pushed him towards a more de-centralized model. When asked about his skill-level, Participant Two described himself as “riding the line” between a professional and a hobbyist. When he is contracted to do a print, his goal is always to “get it right”. This means “eating” the cost of any broken or colour washed models in order to ensure that the customer is satisfied with the results. For him this is a mark of professionalism, yet at the same time Participant Two is operating a business. Each print needs to be as cost-effective as possible, which has lead to him to “tinkering”, or engaging in hobbyist practices. By playing around with the machine and testing its capacities he is able to develop “best-practices” for various kinds of prints. One of the examples he provided was “flesh-tone” cubes. After noticing that he was having trouble getting good-skin tones on models created using photo telemetry, he began printing test cubes in order to determine what kind of corrections needed to be made for these kinds of models. While this tinkering cost him money, he viewed it as a long-term investment as he will ultimately be producing less “burn” prints. He characterizes this overall approach as a combination of his personality and his educational background. As a “geek at heart”, he is always trying to figure out how something works, but as someone who has degrees in business - Participant Two holds an undergraduate degree in Business Administration and a MBA - he is trying to do it as effectively and as directly as possible. 2. Design While scans and designs are done “in-house”, Participant Two does not engage with this part of the business. Instead he has developed a network of artists and technicians that he contracts projects out to when needed. Each member of the network has various specializations - one individual he mentioned only does work on “ complex looking mechanical robots” - and are from around the world. This allows Participant Two to attract a broad spectrum of clients “who know what they want but not how to make it”, and to “play with time zones” in order to ensure that there will always be a design ready to go when he comes into the office each morning. 3. Processing and Printing Participant Two owns several hobbyist printers, but does all of his professional work on a ProJet 660 Pro. Although he does “tinker” with the machine as mentioned above, when he is running the machine in a “professional” capacity his practices are driven by efficiency. When he first started his business, he focused on small-runs of only two to three parts, as he believed this would reduce the overall material he would require. What he quickly learned, however, is that due to the purging and cleaning processes that are required between each print, small part runs ultimately end up costing more material than large part runs. This was a costly mistake for him,

15

and now he tries to “pack the bed” every time he operates the machine to be efficient as possible. The biggest challenge for him in all of this is that “no one tells you these things”; he has had to develop his practices over time and with little support. The first step of processing for Participant Two is examining the scan or design for any “holes”. If the model’s mesh has any holes in it the printer will read them as “colourless” and the end part will have a white patch - the colour of the printer’s material - in the corresponding spot. While this is a fairly straightforward process, as the holes can easily be repaired in most mesh programs and the printer’s software highlights the edges of any holes, it does take time to individually examine each model. Yet, this is an important step for Participant Two as it ensures that there will not be any costly mistakes due to errors in the colours of the final part. Next, adjustments are made to the colours of the model. As mentioned earlier, Participant Two has learned that various colours, specifically greens and skin tones, are difficult to get accurate or true. The adjustments he makes depend on how the model was created, including what type of 3D scanning or CAD program was used, and what the hue is. This is an on-going process for Participant Two, as he is always experimenting through simple trial and error to get better colour results. The last step is orienting and positioning the models. Participant Two manually places each of the models, as he has found that the printer’s software is too conservative with its spacing. In the program each model is given a boundary box based upon its largest dimension in the x, y, and z axes. The printer’s software uses these boundary boxes, rather than the true dimensions of the model, when it auto-positions everything on the bed. This means that there can be massive amounts of dead-space depending upon the kinds of models are being printed. By placing everything himself, Participant Two is able to maximize the yield from each print. In not being able to rely on the auto-positioning tool in the printer’s software, Participant Two has developed a series of rules that govern how he places models:

• Spread the models out along the x and y axes; stacking models on the z axis means longer prints that use more material. • If a model has fragile pieces, position it in the top right corner - the material is not packed as tightly near the bottom of the x-axis and pieces tend to break more easily there. • When positioning a “long” or “large” piece, place it along the bottom of the x-axis. The part will sag, but it can be re-heated and bent back into shape during post-production.

While he does his best to follow these rules for each print, he does note they need to be seen as contextually driven. Each print is comprised of a full bed with different models; what worked for one might not be the most efficient setup for another. Participant Two’s final consideration is whether the print is a “rush job”. If a client wants to get their part as quickly as possible, and is willing to pay, an “uh-oh” piece will be added to the print. This piece is simply a double of the model, but it ensures that if anything goes wrong in printing or post-production, there is a spare part ready to go. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects Once a print has finished, the first step in post-production is excavating the bed. Participant Two refers to this step as “kind of like an archaeological dig”. By sifting through the bed, the individual parts are located and the excess material around the parts is swabbed away until they are free. They are then moved to a secondary chamber for cleaning and sorting. In discussing his technique for this part of the process, Participant Two suggested that there is no

16

real trick to it aside from going slowly. The parts are not completely cured yet so it is quite easy to damage them as you dig them up. In the cleaning chamber, the parts are blasted with air to remove the final loose layer of excess printer material. The parts are then brushed and sanded in order to “really bring out the colour”. Participant two has found it important to have a variety of tools on hand for this process. Each print is a little different, so the process of bringing out the colours needs to be handled differently. One of the most effective methods he has found, aside from slowly moving to finer and finer grains of sandpaper, is a sonic electric toothbrush. The major advantage of the toothbrush is that, unlike the sandpaper, not a lot of force needs to be applied to the part to effectively clean it. Finally, the part is cured with aerosolized super glue. This process usually takes about 6 hours and leaves the parts with a ceramic like quality. Rather then using the agent sold by the makers of the ProJet 660 Pro for this process, Participant Two has moved to odourless super-glue. The strong smell of the “official” agent meant that he had to leave his shop during the curing phase, whereas the odourless super glue allows him to stay and begin work on the next print. 5. Going Forward When asked about what the industry of 3D printing needed more of going forward he simply responded with “transparency”. Most of the practices that he has developed for making his prints as efficient as possible were isolated to his own experience. He feels that more work needs to be done to allow individual operators to share their experiences and expertise with each other. Doing so would allow for much more meaningful conversations about what best practices are, and what the current shortcomings of the various machines are.

17

Appendix 3 - Participant Three 1. Experience and Background Participant Three is a hobbyist who lives in Toronto. His professional background is in biochemistry, and he is currently working on a PhD in the subject. Although he has used 3D printing at work - he once made a custom holder for a cell culture - the majority of his printing is directly related to his hobby. Over the last few months he has slowly been designing and printing parts for a custom 3D printer based on the prusa i3.

In describing his skill level, Participant Three stated he was a “moderate-low” user, and self-taught. When he first became interested in the technology 2-3 years ago after seeing a Kickstarter for a 3D printer, he had no experience with modelling programs or any form of production. Using various Internet sources, such as Reddit, blogs, and the Toronto 3D printing Google group, he has slowly developed his practices and obtained a better understanding of the mechanics of the machines. With each print, Participant Three is trying to improve the quality of what he can get either by making a better part for the printer, or by experimenting with various setting.

2. Design Participant Three uses are Sketch-up and OpenSCAD for his design work. If a design is more “free-from” he uses Sketch-up, whereas if it more redundant, like a gear, he uses OpenSCAD. Regardless of the program, his first consideration for any design is “what does the object need to be?”, or rather what does it have to do? Once he has a clear understanding of what kind of functionality is ultimately needed, he begins to design it so that it can easily be printed. The printers that Participant Three is currently working with are the Printer Bot Simple and the Printer Bot Jr., and his design processes are heavily influenced by the capacities and limitations of these printers:

• He activity tries to avoid creating any designs that have overhang or features that might require support material. • Due to a warp in the printers’ beds and the fact they are heated, there is a soft limit on the size of his designs, as they need to as close to the centre as possible. • When making inner dimensions, especially screw holes, the diameters or corresponding measurements need to be larger to ensure the tolerances will work. In addition to these printer specific design criteria, Participant Three also tries to ensure that

everything he makes is “sturdy and reliable”. Since the majority of the designs he works on are printer parts, which he knows will be under a certain degree of stress, strength is a governing factor. Once he is done he tries to optimize his designs to reduce the overall material that will be used, as printing can be quite expensive, but this is at best a secondary factor.

It should be noted that not everything Participant Three prints are of his own design. Before he begins designing he checks various websites, such as Thingiverse and the blogs of various members of the 3D printing community, to see if someone has already gotten around to creating the part. If he finds a pre-made design, he will either simple print it to save time, or if it does not exactly fit his requirements he will draw inspiration from it as he makes his own.

18

3. Processing and Printing After finishing any design Participant Three first runs it through NetFabb to look for

errors. This step is particularly important if the design was created in Sketch-up, as this program has a tendency to produce “problems”, such as non-manifold shapes and “bad” vertices. Most of the time NetFabb will not be able to repair the issues, but it does “highlight” where the problems are. Once he knows where these spots are Participant Three goes back into Sketch-Up and attempts to modify his design to resolve the problem. Next, Participant Three uses either Repetier Host or Octoprint to slice and position the design. For the majority of his prints he uses a 20% infill, with 2 shells, and 0.2mm layer height. He has found that these settings provide the best combination for speed, quality, strength, and economy. Depending on the nature of the print and what filament is loaded, he does change the travel speed and temperature settings. If is a part is small, or has small features, Participant Three lowers the travel speed in order to give each layer a chance to cool. He has also found that there is a fair bit of variation between the melting point of individual filaments, generally based on the maker and the colour, and as such he runs tests every time he changes the filament in order to get better results. In positioning a design the primary considerations for Participant Three are making sure its centred, for reasons that have already been detailed above, and where the printer’s fans are located. If a design has a large feature that might block airflow, he will position the design so that this piece faces away from the fan. This prevents cooling issues that negatively affect the overall quality or resolution of the finished part. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects Once a print has finished and cooled Participant Three measures it to see if there has been any “drift” from the digital to the physical. If the part is “true” he then installs it, or if the drift is not too “bad” he uses files and/or drill bits to get it “back into shape”. When asked what he meant by “too bad” Participant Three respond that it depends on the print; If its a small piece and it is easily re-do able he has higher standards whereas if it is a long print - something that takes over 6 hours - he is willing to be far more forgiving. 5. Going Forward For Participant Three one of the biggest challenges in 3D printing comes from the actual engagement with the machine. When he first got into this hobby he was not expect how much “maintenance” and “dialling in” printers took to get good results. While he has seen some beautiful examples of the capacity of printers - he specifically mentioned “fractal vases” - after working with the technology for the past 2-3 years he is now aware of how much energy and fine tuning is required to get those kinds of results. Yet, this is not something that is commonly discussed; it is part of the 3D printing world that only becomes known through experience and engagement with the technology.

19

Appendix 4 - Participant Four 1. Experience and Background The Fourth Participant is a postdoctoral researcher working in the field of Assistive Technology in Toronto. His PhD is in Electrical Engineering with a specialization in Robotics and Controls and he is currently working on the development of a network enabled rehabilitation robot; 3D printing is being used as a way to rapidly design and test custom mounts for the robot’s sensors and handles. In describing his skill-level with 3D printing and design, Participant Four noted that he does not have a background in mechanical engineering and that he only has limited experience with Solidworks. He was first exposed to the technology during his doctoral research. Several members of the lab he was working in, who were all mechanical engineers, were using a printer to rapidly prototype parts for robotics. While he did not formally engage with this process, he did have a chance to watch designing and to learn about how printing in different orientation affects the physical properties of the part. When he began his postdoc, he began to explore the potential of 3D printing for his own work. Over the course of the last several months he has been using various Internet sources, predominately YouTube, to learn how to make simple shapes in Solidworks. This has allowed him to design and print a mount, with some assistance, for his rehabilitation robot - a process that will be discussed in detail below. 2. Design

Participant Four uses a computer in his lab that has an institutional licence for Solidworks for his design work. While he has become familiar with this program, his use is more based upon an issue of access - it is what the lab has - rather than a direct need. Most of the functionality of the program goes unused in his own individual work. When designing a part, Participant Four’s primary design consideration is functionality. The mount he is working on needs to hold an array of sensors, as well as a handle for the patient to grab onto. The alignment of the sensors is critically important as their position and orientation affects the readings they produce; even if the sensors are only slight moved or misaligned. For Participant Four to effectively develop an algorithm to interpret these readings and give proper feedback, the mount needs to keep the sensors in place and other considerations are secondary. Using basic shapes, he designed his mount in such away that he thought it would be stable. The fundamental parts of the design entailed a rectangular 8” plate with a rounded end attached to an I-bracket, with a top and bottom diameter of 4” and a central diameter of 2’ (Figure 2). In retrospect, he admits that he did not go too far into the practical details. He ended up getting “lucky” with tolerances and was eventually able to get the part to work as needed though some post-production.

3. Processing and Printing

The part itself was printed in another lab using a MakerBot Replicator 2, with Participant Four providing guidance and insight into how the part would be used. The first print focused on the quality of the mounting surfaces and the screw holes, so no support was used. This approach, however, proved unsuccessful as the shape of the I-bracket made it warp, causing torque errors in the sensors. The second attempt used the support generated in MakerBot Desktop, and although it required some post-production, it was successful.

20

In discussing the printing process, Participant Four commented that dealing with the print orientation of the part is particularly challenging. While he knew going in that changing the part’s orientation when it printed affected its mechanical properties, he had no way of knowing how. It was not until he got the parts back and started to physically use them that he began to notice issues. For example, the rectangular plate was printed flat against the bed of the printer. This means that the part has a high torque stretch, but can easily bend. Ideally these properties would be reversed, but printing the plate in any other orientation would be a challenge given its current design. The lack of “clues” when it comes to the printing process made the design and producing the part all the more troublesome for Participant Four.

4. Post-Production and Finished Objects Once Participant Four got the part back into his lab he removed the support material and filed down any left over ridges. He also drove test screws into each of the holes to make sure they had threads. He then installed the parts and began testing them. While he believes overall there is room for improvement with the design, he is for the most part satisfied with the finished product. The Makerbot Replicator 2 was able to strike a good balance between price, strength, quality, and speed. For him the point of a 3D printed part is its ability to allow for him to quickly test and develop various configurations for the sensors on his rehabilitation robot. Yet, prior to his engagement with the Makerbot this was not an economic possibility. The printers that existed in the institutional structure of his lab were costly to operate, though they do have a higher degree of functionality, and required a fair bit of lead time. Using one of these printers, Participant Four would have only had the opportunity to print one part, if that. The overwhelmingly lower cost and quicker turnaround of the Makerbot more than made up for any issues with the print quality that required post-production. . 5. Going Forward

Participant Four is still in the process of developing his practices around 3D printing. One of the areas that he feels is currently the most lacking in the process is the connection between the digital and the material. As he suggests “when working in the digital everything is fine, but when printing there is a resolution that needs to be taken into account”. In thinking about things such as the tolerances for screw holes this is an easy practice, but it becomes a real issue when dealing with the larger material properties that might effect the overall features of the design. When he first sat down to design the mount, he spent several hours online looking for guidance about the properties of printed materials. He wanted some kind of quantifiable data he could use to help inform how he should design the mount. When he was not able to find any solid answers, he was left to design something that he reasoned would be strong enough and perform the way he wanted it to. This lack of a material starting point, or even clues about how the properties act once they are printed, is something that is he still trying to figure out within his designs.

21

Appendix 5 - Participant Five 1. Experience and Background The fifth Participant is an industrial designer from Toronto with 20 years of experience in the field. He was first introduced to “3D printing”, or rather “rapid prototyping” as it was referred to at that time, in 1994. Until recently, when he used an Objet to make some injection moulds, Participant Five predominantly used 3D printers either as a method to test designs for a part or to make “mock-ups” for a client. While there are fundamental differences in the kinds of considerations that go into these use cases, which shall be detailed below, they are both grounded in a larger framework based on models of production. The majority of the parts Participant Five designs will ultimately end up being produced using injection moulding; as he designs a part it is with that mode of production, not 3D printing, in mind. When one of these designs is printed a “translation process” between the modes of production occurs that re-shapes, or out right removes, some of the part’s characteristics. This is done not only to make the qualities of the part fit better fit in its context, as a stand in or functional prototype, but also as a way to make it more conducive to the 3D printing process. The focus on production is a result of the context Participant Five found himself in after graduating college. Unlike many of his peers, who ended up working from home, he got a job at a rehabilitation engineering consortium. This allowed him to be surrounded by “people who knew what they were doing” and that he could easily question about a wide variety of modes of production. Moreover, as a result of being so close to the act of production in a physical sense, the process of how something would be made became a central aspect of his work. During this interview, he told stories of how the shop techs would routinely call everyone over and “chew out” a designer for their sloppy practices, such as not working from a common origin. This experience as a whole taught him to always try to “put himself in the place of the person who has to build it”, and it has become the underlining logic behind all of his practices. 2. Design As already mentioned, when designing Participant Five is working towards a mass form of production, typically injection moulding, with 3D printing only becoming a consideration once he has decided to make a test part or “mock-up”. Each mode of production - be it mass or rapid - has different considerations that influence the overall design and function of the part. For example, when he is designing his part for injection moulding it will include snap-catches. These features, however, will be removed when 3D printing the part, as the resolution of the printers does not allow them to function properly. The challenge for the designer then, is knowing the individual characteristics of the various modes of production they will be using and then modifying their design accordingly. Once a design has been completed, with the CAD program and underlining logic depending on the industry and end process, Participant Five’s first consideration when printing is what type of machine will be used. Generally he uses either FDM or SLA, and while they are entirely different processes both require him to make changes that have “no relevance to production”. Which type of printer is selected general based upon the size of the client - the cost of SLA generally means only larger clients will use it - and what the print is for testing or for a mock-up.

22

SLA is the easiest process for him to translate into, as it has many of the same considerations used in injection moulding. For the most part the only real changes that need to be made are:

• Removing the Snap Catches (even with the higher resolution of SLA these features still will not work); and, • Modifying the structure of the mount holes. The changes allow the part to be more easily printed, while still keeping the overall

appearance of the final product. Depending on how the part will be used, Participant Five may also “over-engineer” it by increasing the wall thickness. This is predominantly to address any weaknesses that 3D printing might “add” to the part that will not be there when it is injection moulded. Moving a design to a FDM printer requires a bit more work. The model is modified not only to make it fall more in line with the process, but to make it more true to the “actual” finished product. In changing the design, Participant Five is trying to make the end printed product as similar as possible to the end “produced” product. The changes he usually makes are:

• Removing the snap catches, • Increasing the wall thickness, • Modifying the rads of a design to “make them more gradual”; and, • Simplifying or de-featuring aspects of the design that cannot translated. How these changes actually manifest is deeply dependent on the design itself. As

Participant Five is quick to point out, when 3D printing he is not trying to change his design for the sake of process, rather he is modifying it so the “original intentions” of can be captured.

It is also worth mentioning that, with regards of the type of printers he uses, Participant Five does examine the model for a planar surface to print from. The vast majority of the time this is not a problem as the design will have one as a result of being made with injection moulding in mind. This is an interesting, and important, example of a design consideration that exists across multiple forms of production. 3. Processing and Printing When Participant Five gets ready to print and process a part, an additional layer of specification is added. While the design for the part has already been modified to meet the considerations for a kind of 3D printing process, it is not done with a specific machine in mind. This changes, however, once he is ready to print. By selecting a printer he has a higher degree of control and can limit the “interoperation on the other end”. An example he provided is a client that he frequently works with in another country. Both of them have Makerbot Replicators. This allows him process a design using MakerBot Desktop and send the G-code to the client. They can then both print it off and review the results. This is a very controlled context that he has been able to develop as a result of his long-term relationship with this client; the major benefit being that he knows they will both be looking at fundamentally the same part. This fear of variables has influenced how Participant Five sets up each print. Ideally each tray has no raft, no support, and can be printed in an hour. These settings are designed around the idea of “repeatability”. If a print can be finished quickly and has no raft or support material to damage the fit/finish, it is far more likely have less material drift from what Participant Five had in mind.

In a similar vein, Participant Five commented that depending upon the length of the project, upwards of 50 different variations of a printer specific design might be created. These

23

variations are only minor changes, usually focusing on tolerances, and are a response to the different seasonal conditions. For example, a part file made in August might not work due to changes in humidity in January. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects The only post-production Participant Five does is for parts that will be “mock ups”. These tend to be the SLA parts and he has them professional painted and textured. This allows them to closely, if not exactly, replicate the appearance of the final product. While Participant Five does acknowledge the value of doing this kind of work - it gives a client a very clear sense of what they will be getting - he does acknowledge that there is a certain degree of danger to it. As mentioned early, some of the considerations he puts into a design that will be 3D printed involve de-featuring it. Multiple times this has lead to clients “rejecting a part” because the assume the 3D printed version, especially now that it has been painted, directly corresponds to how it will look and function when it is produced using a rapid model of production. Despite these potential drawbacks, Participant Five does see a real value in producing a 3D printed part. As long as everyone understands what they are looking at, these parts can function as a sort of design “spell-check”. It allows potential issues to be caught early through the production of multiple iterations. It also allows the collapsing of distance between him and his clients, by allowing them both to hold a similar part in a relatively short period of time. The fundamental issue with the technology, for Participant Five at least, is that it must occupy this highly controlled context if it is to work as it is intended to. 5. Going Forward In his discussion of 3D printing, Participant Five was alluding to a much larger issue in the process of design. With the refinement of manufacturing technology, it is increasingly becoming possible to produce anything you would like - so long as you are willing to pay for it. Many designers are unaware of the material considerations that need to go into a design in order to make it easily producible. As Participant Five describes situations when “ the designer just wants what they put to the page - how it’s made is someone else problem”. This underlying philosophy is something that needs to be understood and addressed - as it fundamentally shapes how designing and production technologies are approached and understood.

24

Appendix 6 - Participant Six and Seven 1. Experience and Background Participants Six and Seven are the founders and owners of a Toronto based design studio. They first got involved in 3D printing around 2 years ago when one of their projects required the development of an enclosure. The designer that was working on the project - who has since left the company - had originally focused on creating the enclosure through retrofitting pre-existing parts. Midway through it was decided that this approach was not really working and a Makerbot Replicator 2 was purchased for the project. Participants Six and Seven both refer to this as a fundamental shift no only to how the project took shape - “we moved from assembling it from parts to actually making it” - but also how the studio as a whole began to approach design. Before they became involved with 3D printing, the studio had purchased several laser cutters. Working with these machines gave Participants Six and Seven, and the other designers in the studio, a sense of how technology can influence and shape a design. For laser cutting this means figuring out how to break your design into “layers” and then assembling it. This can be labour intensive and long process, especially if the layers are quite thin, for what essentially adds up to “20-30% of the feel of your design”. In contrast, 3D printing removed “a lot of the fiddling” and allowed them to get closer to “design on the screen” at a much quicker pace. While they admit that it is not perfect, just as with the laser cutters there is a materiality to the process, the ability to “pick-up” their designs and inspect them has allowed them to develop a far “leaner” and more “effective” design process. The current project that Participant Six and Seven are working involves using industrial grade resin 3D printers to produce soft tooling. They describe this project as the “culmination” of all their experience, and being the most “hands-on”. The processes they have developed involve printing the soft tooling, hand-sanding, coating and finishing, casting the parts in silicon, mixing the materials, and then finally vacuum casting to make the finish product. Both Participants jokingly discuss the process and how they were lucky to have a background in the fine arts due to the sheer volume of hand-work required. In fact, one of the biggest issues that the process currently has is the “bottle-neck” created by the fact that Participant Six is the only one who currently knows how to properly cast and sand the pieces. As they work to refine the practices and techniques involved, one of their primary focuses is developing a more “distributive” process that removes the dependency on an individual. 2. Design When producing a design for a product, the primary concern for Participants Six and Seven is “how will it be made?”. For their current project, both 3D printing and injection moulding have left “marks” on the design. Each process has its own limits and considerations that need to be taken into account and that will shape the design process. Both Participants suggest that the only way to really come to terms with the materially of the printers, or of any process, is through long-term engagement and experimentation. Their current design process is based on an iterative model. A simple design is first created and printed that focuses on getting the “shape” and “function” of the part right. With each new version, more details are added and production specific features are added or removed. An example they provided was the “walls” on one of the parts. As the design developed, the wall became thinner in response to the various modes of production that it was associated with - first a consumer grade FDM printer, second a industrial resin printer, and

25

finally injection moulding. Some of the most interesting, or potentially bizarre, parts to emerge from this are the transitional designs as they are seemingly stuck between the different considerations necessary for the printers being used. In terms of general rules for producing parts on 3D printers, Participants Six and Seven try to:

• Design with an orientation in mind (especially with FRM printers) to reduce the need for support material and ensure that features behave as intended, • Design with a material in mind - both in terms of the process that will be used, as they have different resolutions, and for strength; and, • Work with a spec sheet that explains that limits of the machine to prevent adding unprintable features or negatively influencing the overall structure of the design. This is all based on the idea of developing a realistic understanding of what the technology

can and cannot produce. Without that, as Participants Six and Seven are quick to point out, you end up with “designs that look like something, but print like nothing”. 3. Processing and Printing When printing a part, Participant Six and Seven are trying to ensure that it is “true” and that the “finish” is not damaged. As already mentioned above, parts are designed with a specific orientation in mind so that it minimizes or removes the need for support material. Both Participants commented that they only use support material when a part needs to be orientated “in some strange angle” to ensure that specific features print well. An example they provided of this was an off-centred box in their first 3D printed project. They ended up printing the piece on a 45-degree pitch on the x-axis to ensure that the box was sufficiently square. Their distaste for supports, however, has recently been revised with a minor change to their workflow. Rather than using the slicers that come with their printers, they have started to use Simplify3D. The support generated in this program does not negatively affect the finish on the part as much as other programs, so they have begun experimenting with different kind of orientations to see what kind of results they can get. Participants Six and Seven also point to the importance of “dialling in the machines”. These practices, which are associated FDM machines as resin-based machines are “design and go”, are pointless as the printer that is going to be used has not been properly calibrated. Each printer has its own unique characteristics that do need to be accounted for, but by calibrating them you can get a more universal result. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects Depending on when a part is produced in Participants Six and Seven’s design process, they have different qualities and receive different kinds of post-production. Early prints are predominately “stand-ins” and receive little to no post-production aside from removing of any support material. Parts printed during this phase also have the unique quality of “not needing to be complete”; if a print job fails midway through as long it displays the features they are interested in it is, for all intents and purposes, a successful print. As the design process continues, the parts increasingly become more functional. These prints receive more attention, as they need to simulate or actually carry out a function. Above, the process for the current project that Participants Six and Seven are working was discussed. While this specific project requires a great deal of specialized attention, as any part that is

26

printed that will be given to a client or centrally used in a project will receive some kind treatment, what and how depends on the specifications of the project. 5. Going Forward

In their discussion, Participants Six and Seven call attention to the “hidden” aspects of 3D printing that often cause misconceptions within the general public. When an individual views a finished 3D printed object, the labour and skill imbued in the objects are often imperceptible, resulting in a false understanding of the level of complexity and technical sophistication require to produce them. “The economics of cups make people thing they are only worth a dollar”, these Participants suggest, “when they try to get one made with their face on it that’s what they’re expecting to pay.” This inaccurate belief in a one-to-one equivalency between mass-production and 3D printing deeply influences how people perceive and understand these processes. Further work is needed to improve and clarify popular understandings of the work behind 3D printing as an integral part of the end product.

27

Appendix 7 - Participant Eight 1. Experience and Background Participant Eight is a self-taught 3D printing specialist based out of Toronto. He became interested in the technology in the summer of 2009 after BoingBoing.com posted a story about Makerbot releasing a new run of the Cupcake. Until that point he had no idea that 3D printing existed, and he became fascinated by “the idea of turning imagination into physical objects”. Participant Eight suffers from dysgraphia, a disability that makes holding certain objects like pencils and paintbrushes painful. This prevented him from participating in many forms of creative expression, such as painting and sculpting, that he would likely enjoyed as a child. For him, 3D printing is an in-road to artistic and creative avenues that would otherwise be closed. When asked about his skill level Participant Eight referred to himself as a “generalist”. For him, this means although he is knowledgeable in the field of “making things”, with an expertise in 3D printing, he does not have the formal engineering background to “model everything from scratch”. His expertise comes from hands-on engagements with professional and consumer grade machines, as well as a desire to engage with the 3D printing community through various RSS feeds and sites like Fabbaloo. Additionally, he has worked on a wide variety of 3D printing based projects, from the development of educational workshops to small production runs, that have helped to inform his practices. It is also worth noting that prior to 2009, Participant Eight had no real experience within the field of production or design. His educational background is in the field of Radio Broadcasting, having completed some college, and he only briefly used modeling programs during high school in the 1990s. 2. Design The programs that Participant Eight generally uses to design are 123D Design, OpenSCAD, MeshMixer, and TinkerCad. Over the past year or so, the design practices he has developed for these programs have begun to shift as a result of the printers he has access to. His original strategies were as follows:

• Designing the part “bottom-up”, which entailed orientating or positions the part to mimic how the part would be printed. This allowed him to easily spot any areas that might creates problems due to overhangs. • Minimizing any overhangs without affecting the overall look or material properties of the part. • Keeping notes for complex designs to keep track of any changes made and the overall logic and process, in order to troubleshoot any future issues. These strategies were developed to make the designs more “3D-printer friendly” by

preventing the need for support material. However, since he has moved to printing predominantly on an Afinia H480 he “doesn’t go crazy” on these kinds of considerations anymore. Unlike other printers that he has used, such as the Makerbot Replicator 2, the Afinia’s associated software does an excellent job generating support material that “easily peels right-off” without seriously damaging the model. His strategies for printing have therefore shifted away from minimizing overhangs and support material, and towards a focus on questions of “what does the part have to do?”. This shift in design considerations speaks to a larger issue brought up by Participant Eight: printer specific design. As he was laying out his original strategies, he specifically stated that they were for FDM machines and that when he does work on SLS, machines none of these

28

considerations apply. For SLS his sole consideration, again, is “what does the part have to do?”. When answering this question Participant Eight is trying to determine not only how the part will be designed, but what kind of machine - in terms of both what kind of printer as well as which specific model - should be used. For any 3D printing project that he is working this is the first consideration that needs to be made. Once this has been determined, usually based on economic factors and how the part will be used, certain characteristics will start to bleed into the part to make it more “printer friendly” for that specific printer. 3. Processing and Printing In discussing how he processes and prints a design, Participant Eight once again specified that his practices had recently changed due to the kind of printers he now predominately uses. He did note that with regards to the printer he was using, the first thing he does is to clean and repair the file using Netfabb, especially if he is working with a scan. When working on a printer such as the MakerBot Replicator 2 he follows his original strategy of minimizing overhangs and trying to avoid the use of support material. For most designs this generally means finding an orientation that works well; ideally this is one in which a flat surface is pressed against the bed of the printer and with shallow angles for any overhang features. When working with a design that does not inherently have a “good” orientation on these kinds of printers, Participant Eight “chops the model in half”. Using programs such as MeshMixer, he breaks up the design into small sections that have these “ideal” properties. Once the print is finished he assembles the individual pieces using super glue to make the part. When working on printers such as the Afinia he avoids this process and simply uses support material. As he suggested earlier, these printers have taken away any major disadvantages of support material. The only real draw back is that it a print takes longer to complete and uses more material. In terms of the printer’s settings with regards to FDM machines, he generally keeps the layer height to 0.2mm. Participant Eight says that for most parts this is a good balance between speed and surface quality. Although if a print is particularly “boxy”, he will increase the layer height to save time as it does not have as much of an effect on the overall “quality” of the print. One setting that he frequently plays with is infill. Rather than sticking with the default 10%, he prefers to print at at least 20%, as it gives the part a “nicer weight”. If the part is something that people will be frequently handling or touching - a specific example he provided was a “fine art” piece - he turns the infill all the way up to 80% to make it feel more “authentic” or real. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects Post-production is a more straightforward affair. First, the part is cleaned. If the part was printed in pieces they are assembled, glued in place, and the models is lightly sanded. Conversely, if support material was used, it is ripped off and any left over bits are cut off or sanded. Next the part is inspected for any issues with the part in terms or warping or dropping, as well as tested for overall sturdiness. Finally, if the client requests it the part is painted. This last phase of the process for Participant Eight is the moment of truth. When printing for a client, the overarching question is “is that what they were looking for?”. If it is not, “what has be done to get that?”. For personal prints there is a bit more flexibility within the evaluation. While he wants to see “what he envisioned” in his hands, he has accepted that at times he will be surprised by the results. An example that he provided was one of the first times he printed with a wood filament. The design he was working with was a scan of his head turned into a bust. The part that was ultimately produced was quite different aesthetically than what he

29

was expecting. Rather than trying to figure out how to make the part more like the image he had in his head, he took it for what it was and embraced its “pleasing” properties. 5. Going Forward In discussing some of the biggest issues or challenges he has faced in 3D printing Participant Eight focused on his experience running educational workshops. Seemingly, almost without fail, anytime a workshop involves making some kind of enclosure, participants will design theirs with walls too thin to print. For him, designing an enclosure with a specific print in mind has become second nature. For many participants, however, this is a mental hurdle and one that can be quite frustrating. For Participant Eight’s perspective there needs to be more of a connection between the process of design and of printing, as without it many people engaging with the technology for the first time have no idea they are doing anything wrong, or how to correct their mistakes.

30

Appendix 8 - Participant Nine 1. Experience and Background The ninth, and final, Participant is the business manager for additive manufacturing at a multi-national engineering firm. His previous work experience includes time in both the field of aerospace engineering - holding various titles such as CAD/CAM programmer and advanced project engineer - as well as teaching engineering at the university level. In addition to holding a undergraduate degree in astro/aero space engineering Participant Nine also has a MBA. In his current role, Participant Nine is responsible for handling the installation and development of additive manufacturing systems for clients across multiple industries. What makes the firm he works for unique, or in the very least specialized, is that the processes they develop entail printing in metals rather than plastics or ceramics. This is a fairly niche market in the sense that the machines, and the infrastructure to support them, are quite costly and that only certain projects are conducive to the constraints of the technology. Moreover, each project that does adopt the technology requires the development of its own process. As Participant Nine is quick to point out, it is important for clients to “own” their process, as it shapes and is shaped by the product being made. 2. Design When Participant Nine is first approached by a client who is interested in deploying an additive system he asks them “what is wrong with what you are currently doing?”. By probing them in this way, he is trying to get a sense of why they are trying to move away from in traditional methods of production. He has found in most cases that there is nothing inherently “wrong” with what is currently in place; the move to an additive process is simply an attempt to jump onto a “hot” technology or to find a “cheaper alternative”. The underlining problem in both of these scenarios is that the client simply wants to transfer their part over, despite the fact it was designed with another manufacturing process in mind. Currently few clients, if anyone, are actively designing parts with 3D printing in mind as the end mode of production. For Participant Nine, this is predominantly a result of a lack of understanding the “sweet spot” for the technology, or rather where 3D printing can most effectively intervene in order to improve the manufacturing process. The “long hanging fruit” for 3D printing right now is “de-risking” a project. By allowing designers and engineers to routinely and rapidly produce iterations of a part, it allows them to fix/address mistakes that might have otherwise gone missed. This in turn, Participant Nine suggests, results in a “cheaper” production cycle as costly mistakes can be caught early. In discussing the back-and-forth brought about by this technology, Participant Nine described how it can also fundamentally shift the design process. As a project develops, various factors will come into play that shape its design. 3D printing, due to its ability to rapidly prototype parts, gives designers and engineers the opportunity to easily revisit the decisions they made and potentially alter these factors. This could result in everything from minor changes to a complete reassessment of the design of a part. In terms of more general “rules” of design for 3D printing, Participant Nine argued that attempting to develop any “dry rules” or a “silo’d” approach to the technology is a bad idea. Every project that he has worked on has been shaped by unique questions of “what does the part have to do?”. Once this been established, a method of production is developed to meet those specific needs with the design following accordingly.

31

3. Processing and Printing As mentioned earlier, one of the key aspects of Participant Nine’s approach to 3D printing is “ownership of the process”. For him, it is important that the systems and processes that are put in place reflect the specifics of what is being worked on. The most challenging aspect of this is ensuring that there is a degree of “engagement” from all parties. Those seeking to incorporate additive processes into either their work or production flows need to be active participants. Simply grafting existing practices, or passively adopting the technology, does not work or leads to unsatisfying results. Using a 3D printer, especially the kind that Participant Nine sells, requires a long-term commitment, “learning by doing”, and a potential shift in organizational culture. 4. Post-Production and Finished Objects In discussing the technology of 3D printing in metal, Participant Nine characterized it as “low tolerance”. This is primarily a result of a balance that needs to be struck between speed, resolution, and cost. While finer powders and lasers could be introduced, improving the overall resolution of the print, it would dramatically increase the time and cost of each print. The larger implication of this is that it limits the use cases of metal 3D printing as a standalone technology, as low tolerance assemblies are rare. If 3D printing is to become more widespread as a tool of production, Participant Nine argues that a hybrid model will need to be adopted. This would involve printing out base pieces and then finishing them as parts using traditional subtractive processes such as CNC. To a certain extent this is already a reality, as many examples of the capacities of the technology, such as the printed bicycles, depend on the milling of certain parts. 5. Going Forward

If the industry is to continue to develop, Participant Nine feels that there needs to be increased transparency with respect to the feasibility of using the technology and the development processes that support it. When 3D printing is seen or presented as a merely a subset of, or complimentary to, current industrial processes, a level of complexity is lost. Shifts, therefore, need to occur in which 3D printing technology is recognized as its own set of processes, with its own rules, opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and governance.

32

Appendix 9 - Technologies and Resources Used By Participants 123D Design Afinia H480 Boingboing.com Cura Fabbaloo Makerbot Cupcake MakerBot Desktop Makerbot Replicator 2 Makerbot Thing-o-matic Mendel Max 2.0 MeshMixer Netfabb Objet Octoprint OpenSCAD ProEngineer ProJet 660 Pro Printer Bot Jr. Printer Bot Simple prusa i3 Reddit Repetier Host Rhino Simplify3D Sketch-up Solidworks Thingiverse TinkerCad Z-Corp colour printer