Embedded Files
This page is a shorter, summarized version of the original, click the button to access the original ->
Attributes linked to this design project (CEAB's Graduate Attributes):
> Problem analysis
> Design
> Use of engineering tools
> Communication skills
> Life-long learning
We were assigned the task of designing a 3D printer catering to hobbyists and amateur users, aiming to outperform existing models such as the Bambu Lab X1C and the QIDI TECH X-Max 3. Our objective was to align with the competition in terms of product and usage price ranges, print speeds, and sizes.
To achieve this, we initiated an extensive market research project to delve into the nuances of the prevailing 3D printer market. The formulation of precise engineering specifications was grounded in the findings from this research. Simultaneously, we engaged in an iterative design process, generating a range of potential designs. Through systematic analysis and comparison, we narrowed down these options to a singular design that not only met but exceeded industry standards.
To ensure the viability and competitiveness of our chosen design in the market, we subjected it to further optimization and refinement using SolidWorks. Employing an iterative approach founded on engineering precision and market insights, our 3D printer project was strategically positioned for success in a competitive and ever-evolving market.
Teamwork was crucial for this project as there were too many little details needed that it would have been easy for me alone to have missed them and not realized until team members highlighted them. As you can see later on, several iterations were needed to come up with a fully functional, appropriate, and efficient design.
SELECTED CANDIDATE DESIGN:
Cartesian Motion with Thread Rod and lead screws - V4 OF 4
Chosen design's iterations:
Cartesian Motion with Thread Rod and lead screws - V3 OF 4 (before CAD)
I made major iterations to the design four times. After every iteration, I consulted with my team to get their opinion on what they thought of each, and if they could think of any way to improve the design.
I initially came up with v1, but before proceeding to 3-D model it, realized that it had too many rotating parts, which would eventually cause the system to fail or weaken at some point in time; that's when I came up with v2, a design with fewer moving/rotating parts, but designed in a way that would allow the model to last practically much longer.
V2 also had its flaws. There were four stepper motors controlling the same movement in one direction, and so if any of the four motors failed or misaligned with the rest, the entire product would be defective. This made me move to v3, which still being advanced, but with fewer moving parts.
I consulted with my team on my final v3 design and one of the members highlighted a major flaw: the rotational movement of the extruder's screw rod coincided with it's linear motion, and so the user would not be able to control the extruder linear motion without affecting its rotational movement, and vice versa. With time being short, I quickly brainstormed viable ideas and discussed them with my team by using visuals during the same meeting, and ended up with the perfect solution to the problem, v4.
Cartesian Motion with Thread Rod and lead screws - V2 OF 4
Cartesian Motion with Thread Rod and lead screws - V1 OF 4
Design 1 (selected design): Cartesian Motion with Thread Rod and lead screws
Pros:
The nozzle can rotate, meaning they can save time and material by not building as many supports.
Cons:
The nozzle has to rotate meaning there are more components to the printer.
Design 2: Cartesian Motion with Belts
Pros:
Relatively easy concept to reproduce.
Similar concept to other printers on the market. This means that it has already been tested and done by the market.
Cons:
Print bed cannot move in the x and y direction at the same time.
The belts moving the print bed must be very long, meaning the printer is a lot larger than the print bed .
Design 3: Cartesian-Polar Hybrid Motion with Linkage Mechanism
Pros:
Similar designs exist on the market.
Is relatively fast (in terms of movement).
Cons:
Different coordinates, meaning it can be harder to program.
Relatively more components needed.
Design 4: Pulley-String Mechanism
Pros:
Not many moving components
Cons:
Not very common in the market
Different models mean more custom parts are necessary
The decision of design selected:
The team decided to continue the project with Design 1. We selected the design to be the top candidate because it is relatively fast, has a similar design on the markets, meaning parts can be found relatively easily, and has a simple design. It also has a lower operational cost than other printers on the market and is the middle ground between all the options.
Google Sites
Report abuse