RAPID ENGINERING

LABORATORY
3D printing of “The Elder Wand”

Group 71
Josh Novick - 510448983
Lachlan Irving - 490627792
Yuvraj Tyagi - 510654115
1. Introduction
The rapid engineering laboratory was done so a comparison could be made between a
SolidWorks model and the final resulting product which was constructed using the 3D printing
method. Thingiverse, a website containing a vast array of SolidWorks models, was used to select
the following model named “The Elder Wand” and can be visualised in Figure 1.

A comparison between the online model and the completed product was achieved after printing.
Figure 2 shows the finished product after 3D printing and support +-

Figure 1: CAD model of “Elder Wand” [8] Figure 2: Final printed product
Tiertime, the software used to scale and manipulate the model before printing, indicated that the
final size of the body should be 6.414mm x 87.013mm x 6.420mm. The maximum diameter was
found to be 6.40mm and the length of the wand was recorded as 86.98mm, both measurements
undertaken using a vernier calliper. Slight differences in the measurements of the printed model
and the CAD model might be caused due to warping. Some of the optimization methods are also
mentioned in this report. Problems were faced during the detachment process due to the complex
design of the wand, especially the thinner end.

Surface finish was also not as smooth or precise as the body that can be visualised in Figure 1.
As 20 minutes was the time limit for finishing the print so, the thickness of the layers and the
amount of infill had to be adjusted so the printing time could meet the time constraint.
2. Research Material

Polylactide (PLA) was the material used in the 3D printing process by the UPBOX machine.
Derived from sugar cane and starch the thermoplastic polymer is constructed from renewable
sources in contrast to other thermoplastics such as Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) which
is made from sources such as petroleum. Figure 3 and 4 on the right emphasise the main
mechanical properties of PLA and how with different blends PLA can exhibit different
behaviours.

Figure 3: Physical and mechanical properties of PLA Figure 4: Stress vs Strain graph of different PLAs

Advantages:
- Low Printing Temperature: PLA can be printed at 180℃ in contrast to ABS which
requires 250℃ for 3D manufacture. This means during the construction process PLA is
less likely to clog the nozzle during printing and warp. Surface details and features are
also more defined than other materials due to the lower temperature.
- Ease of use: Heated print are not required when using PLA and the material also adheres
easily to a variety of surfaces
- Variety of Colour Blending: PLA can be easily pigmented meaning the used material can
come in a wide range of colours and blends.
- Easy Post-Processing: Once printing is complete the material can be sanded, polished,
and painted allowing for a great surface finish with little effort.
- Biodegradable

Limitations:
- Low Heat Resistance: Cannot be used for high temperature applications as the material
will deform rapidly.
- Weaker and lower tensile strength than counterparts ABS and PETG. Therefore, PLA is
more suited for aesthetic and mechanical purposes.
 - Not food safe: Thin gaps between layers can retain moisture so when trying to store food
or liquids problems may arise.
- Prone to Oozing when Heated: Plastic may leak when moving between segments of body.
Strings can then be created between the areas of the part resulting in a flawed print.

Applications:
PLA has properties that enable printing at lower temperatures where high precision surface
finishes are possible, further reinforced by the ease of post-processing methods. However, the
finished material is also less durable and stronger than other counterpart materials such as ABS
and PETG and therefore PLA should be used to manufacture parts more focused on look and
form rather than wear and tear.

3. Discussion and Method used

Additive manufacturing technology is described as

advanced manufacturing technology used for
fabricating parts layer by layer directly from a
computer aided design (CAD) data file [1]
(Mohamed, 2015). The Fused Deposition Modelling
(FDM) process can provide functional prototypes in
various plastics due to its ability to produce complex
parts neatly. The sequence can even take place in
office friendly environments. Plastic is melted into a
liquid state in the liquefier head and then selectively
deposited through a nozzle that traces the parts
cross-sectional geometry to create 3D parts.
Figure 5 on the right highlights the important
Figure 5: Key parts of FDM Machine.
sections of an FDM machine [2]. Production
engineers must consider the optimum process
conditions when producing a part. When
constructing a 3D model using FDM the main
parameters that need to be set is the desired surface
finish, dimensional accuracy, material behaviour and
build time [3].
Considering these points helps the user determine
layer thickness, infill thickness, speed of the FDM
machine and material used [4]. Figure 6 displays the
main pillars that determine the parts quality and

Figure 6: Fishbone Diagram of design

process for the product.
mechanical properties. Figure 7 visualises the properties of the infills that can influence the final
qualities of the model.

Figure 7: Depiction of the infill used in 3D printing.

During the week 8 lab, a number of parameters were set. PLA was the material that would be
used, 20 minutes was the maximum printing time to be used, and approval was needed from the
lab instructor to determine if a model was suitable. After selecting an appropriate model that was
approved the file was imported into the TierTime software where grid placement and scaling
could occur. Toggling different settings allowed the group to see what mixture of speed and layer
thickness settings could deliver the best surface finish possible within 20 minutes. A layer
thickness of 0.15mm, infill of 20% and a quality of fine was used to print the model. Once
complete a shear cutter was used to dismantle the main body from the supporting material on
bottom and the final dimensions of the body were measured using a vernier calliper.

4. Change or optimization model

The printed product as shown in the figures does not have a very smooth surface finish, specially
near the base of the wand. This happened due to higher layer thickness and due to higher than
normal humidity in the environment.
Moreover, the tip of the wand also got bent while removing excess material from around the
wand. All of this could have been avoided using the below methods.

Change of orientation
The orientation of the model while printing plays an important role. The orientation defines the
amount of support material used by the printer during the printing process [5]. Therefore, by
optimizing the orientation of the model we can minimize printing time and reduce the amount of
support needed for the model to be printed. In our case, the wand is in horizontal position
(parallel to the plane).
Therefore, while reprinting, vertical orientation (perpendicular to the plane) would be an optimal
choice. Due to the lower position of centre of gravity and a broad base, less amount of support
material would be required, hence reducing print time and fast removal of excess material after
printing. This would have also made the detaching process of support material easier, which was
very hard to do with horizontal orientation as shown in figure 8.
 Figure 8: Model before support material removal.
Low humidity printing environment
Humidity is usually the biggest cause of product failure while 3D printing. In our case the
material used was PLA, which is also susceptive towards moisture.

Figure 9: Interior setup of UPBOX 3D printer.

Once the filament is exposed to moisture, the material becomes brittle. Therefore, there is always
a risk of filament breakage or sometimes the smoothness of the product is also compromised due
to bubble formation [5].
During our first attempt we faced the similar problem of filament being brittle and it broke off
while printing thus halting the printing process. This might have happened due to high humidity
levels in the air due to rain on that day. Therefore, a low humidity environment would be
preferred.
Decreasing layer thickness
Reduction in layer thickness improves the finish quality of the product[5]. Lower layer thickness
also promotes strength of the product. In our case, the model has intricate design when it comes
to the broader half of the model. To print this portion effectively, the layer thickness could have
been reduced from 0.15 mm to 0.10 mm, which would have resulted in a finer print. This is very
well depicted in figure 10.

Figure 10: Level of finishes with different layer thicknesses.

5. Finished product
In the world of 3D printing, achieving a high-quality finish is often a top concern during the
printing process. The final appearance and smoothness of the printed object can greatly impact
its overall aesthetics and functionality. Therefore, we need to ensure that our 3D printed products
achieve the desired level of finish and quality. Below mentioned are some techniques to improve
product finish quality.

Reducing bed temperature:

By reducing the bed temperature, the issue of slight shrinkage(warping) in the overall
dimensions of the final product, which occurred after the material had cooled off, can be
controlled. To rectify these mentioned problems, it can be ensured that the quantity of filler
material is adequate to completely print the final product. With these adjustments, the final
product obtained can closely match the parameters of the original CAD design. Figure 11 shows
slightly warped end of the wand.

Figure 11: Warped end of the “Elder wand“.

Optimize print settings:
Experiment with print settings such as print speed, nozzle temperature, and cooling fan settings.
Adjusting these parameters can help achieve better surface quality and improve strength. It may
require some trial and error to find the optimal settings for our specific printer and material.

Figure 12: TierTime user interface for printer

settings

Consider post-processing techniques:

Post-processing can greatly enhance surface finish and strength. Techniques like sanding (figure
13), polishing, or chemical smoothing can be applied to achieve smoother surfaces. Some of the
post process treatment may also include heat treatment. Additionally, reinforcing the printed
object with epoxy, resin, or inserts can improve its strength.

Figure 13: Post processing of a printed model

using sanding technique.

Validate and iterate:

To ensure the accuracy of 3D printed parts, it is crucial to validate them against design tolerances
using precise measurement tools. If the tolerances are not met, necessary design adjustments
should be made, followed by iterative printing until the desired results are achieved. This
iterative approach ensures the final product matches the intended design specifications.
6. Discuss/Research an alternate 3D Printing System

A very popular alternative 3d printing method to the traditional FDM (Fused Deposition
Modelling) is resin printing. This method uses a liquid polymer which is solidified layer by layer
using a high precision, high energy laser source, hence the shape of resin which the laser
solidifies on each layer will define the final shape of the product. Hence, the 3D model must be
sliced into layers in the same fashion as is done in FDM printing, although each of these layers
are converted into a 2D pattern for the laser. Resin prints must be cured in a UV chamber in
order to cure and solidify the part.

Figure 14: SLA vs DLP in terms of finish quality[6]

Resin printing provides a higher resolution to traditional methods while removing the obvious
layering texture [6]. This difference can be seen in the figure to the right with the grey print on
the right possessing obvious layers due to the nature of the print, while the blueprint on the left
appears to have smoother surfaces and more precision. Another benefit of resin printing is the
final durability of the print, traditional prints have substantially less strength when stress is
parallel to the printed layers, which is not a problem for resin prints. Despite this benefit, neither
process can provide a product which is strong enough for high/frequent stress applications[7]. A
downside of resin printing which must be considered is its deterioration under UV light, hence
parts cannot be used in outdoor settings.
In variation to FDM printers, resin printers will take the same amount of time to complete each
layer due to the laser curing process, this provides a faster printing time for bigger, flat parts but
the same cannot be said for taller prints as imaged above.

Figure 15: Functioning of different printing methods[7]

Overall, FDM printers show to be the better option for larger, stronger parts. While resin printed
excel in producing precise, smaller parts. Both methods are useful in their own contexts.

7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the comparison between the SolidWorks model and the 3D printed product
revealed differences in measurements and surface finish. PLA, the chosen printing material,
offered advantages such as low printing temperature, ease of use, and post-processing flexibility,
but it also had limitations in heat resistance and tensile strength. The discussion focused on the
FDM process parameters and proposed optimization methods including changing the orientation,
ensuring a low humidity environment, and decreasing the layer thickness to improve surface
finish and minimize issues like warping and bending.
To enhance the finish quality of the final product, techniques such as reducing bed temperature,
optimizing print settings, and employing post-processing methods like sanding and polishing
were suggested. Validating and iterating the design through precise measurements were also
emphasized.
An alternative 3D printing method, resin printing, was explored, highlighting its higher
resolution and smoother surface finish for precise and smaller parts. However, resin printing has
limitations in strength and UV degradation.
By considering these factors and implementing appropriate optimization methods and
techniques, the surface finish and quality of 3D printed products can be significantly improved,
bringing them closer to the intended design specifications.
8. References
1. Aloyaydi, Bandar & S., Sivasankaran. (2020). Low-Velocity Impact Characteristics of 3D-

Printed Poly-Lactic Acid Thermoplastic Processed by Fused Deposition Modeling.

Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals. 73. 10.1007/s12666-020-01952-6.

2. Anitha R, Arunachalam S, Radhakrishnan P. (2001). Critical parameters influencing the

quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol 118(1–3):385–

388

3. Mohamed, O.A., Masood, S.H. & Bhowmik. (2015). J.L. Optimization of fused deposition

modeling process parameters: a review of current research and future prospects. Adv. Manuf.

3, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-014-0097-7

4. Nancharaiah T, Raju DR, Raju VR. (2010). An experimental investigation on surface quality

and dimensional accuracy of FDM components. Int J Emerg Technol 1(2):106–111

5. Sun-Mou Lai, Sheng-Huang Wu, Gwo-Geng Lin, Trong-Ming Don. (2014). Unusual

mechanical properties of melt-blended poly(lactic acid) (PLA)/clay nanocomposites.

European Polymer Journal. Volume 52. Pages 193-206, ISSN 0014-3057.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.12.012.

6. “Resin vs. Filament 3D Printers - How to Pick What's Best for You.” Choosing a 3D Printer:

Filament or Resin?, Creality Experts, 2022, https://www.crealityexperts.com/filament-or-

resin-3d-printer#:~:text=Filament%20printers%20are%20superior%20for,more%20precisely

%20on%20small%20parts.

7. “SLA vs. DLP: Guide to Resin 3D Printers.” Formlabs, SLA vs. DLP: Guide to Resin 3D

Printers, 2021, https://formlabs.com/asia/blog/resin-3d-printer-comparison-sla-vs-dlp/.

8. Thingiverse.com. (n.d.). The Elder Wand (fits on Ender 3 v2) by printswilliam. Thingiverse.

Retrieved April 29, 2023, from https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5241448#Summary