3D printing paradox : “more complex software, but easier to use”

Before objects can be prin­ted by a 3D prin­ter, they must first be model­led using CAD (Com­pu­ter-Aided Desi­gn) soft­ware. This fun­da­men­tal phase allows for a cer­tain level of crea­ti­vi­ty and pro­duct cus­to­mi­sa­tion, but also lets the user digi­tal­ly ana­lyse an object before it is pro­to­ty­ped. This pro­cess, howe­ver, involves a great deal of steps to set up pre­cise para­me­ters and requires the user to have a high level of tech­ni­cal ability.

Albane Imbert is head of science tech­no­lo­gy plat­form, the Making Lab, at the Fran­cis Crick Bio­me­di­cal Research Ins­ti­tute in Lon­don. It pro­vides tech­ni­cal exper­tise to the research labo­ra­to­ries at the Crick and other part­ner ins­ti­tu­tions. With her team, Albane Imbert desi­gns new tools for resear­chers in order to ans­wer com­plex research ques­tions and speed up bio­me­di­cal discoveries.

Can you pro­vide a brief expla­na­tion of your work ?

Albane Imbert. Our exper­tise ranges from micro­fa­bri­ca­tion (at the cel­lu­lar scale) as a way to regu­late bio­lo­gi­cal sys­tems, to other fields like elec­tro­nics and mecha­nics. We also use optics to mea­sure bio­lo­gi­cal acti­vi­ty and desi­gn devices to assist in bio­me­di­cal ima­ge­ry. In my lab, we use 3D prin­ting tech­no­lo­gy on a dai­ly basis to qui­ck­ly manu­fac­ture func­tio­nal pro­to­types. This col­la­bo­ra­tive work bet­ween resear­chers and our team is part of a world­wide trend which aims to adapt rapid pro­to­ty­ping tech­no­lo­gies to research, and more spe­ci­fi­cal­ly to the field of biology.

Are there major dif­fe­rences bet­ween model­ling soft­ware pro­grams used for addi­tive manu­fac­tu­ring in indus­try, research, or domes­tic settings ?

A wide range of 3D model­ling soft­ware is avai­lable on the mar­ket. Each area (indus­try, desi­gn, archi­tec­ture, ani­ma­tion, research…) has spe­ci­fic needs which require pre­cise, and more or less com­plex, func­tio­na­li­ties. The choice depends both on the appli­ca­tion and the expe­rience level of the user.

In addi­tion to addi­tive manu­fac­tu­ring, 3D model­ling has become wide­ly acces­sible. Today, many excellent soft­ware solu­tions exist for people who wish to bet­ter unders­tand this pro­cess that are free and easy to use. But beware, even though using a 3D prin­ter is rela­ti­ve­ly simple, it never­the­less requires a cer­tain amount of time to mas­ter – it is not easy to get the hang of !

Except in par­ti­cu­lar cases, such as indus­try, 3D model­ling and pro­grammes run­ning the manu­fac­tu­ring pro­cess are two very dis­tinct steps, which rely on two dif­ferent soft­ware pro­grams. First, the model­ling soft­ware. Second, the soft­ware that breaks it up into the seg­ments. The lat­ter, in par­ti­cu­lar, depends on the 3D prin­ter used and sets the para­me­ters for the prin­ting process.

3D model­ling must take into account the manu­fac­tu­ring method and the mate­rial used to make the object. For example, you will desi­gn objects dif­fe­rent­ly that are made out of metal or plas­tic. Not only is the mate­rial dif­ferent, but the cho­sen manu­fac­tu­ring tech­no­lo­gy comes with its own chal­lenges, too. And in research it all depends on the needs of the laboratory !

In our field, we main­ly focus on prin­ting pho­to­sen­si­tive resin on a small scale. It requires great pre­ci­sion, using mate­rials which are bio­com­pa­tible or resis­tant to che­mi­cal treat­ments. We also stu­dy the inco­ming and out­going flow of liquids in parts and opti­mise our prin­table models so as to res­pect all these conditions.

For you, what is the future of model­ling soft­ware ? Will they become increa­sin­gly simple to use (espe­cial­ly for the gene­ral public) or are there still too many tech­ni­cal limitations ?

The 3D prin­ting sec­tor has a bright future ahead of it, and the accom­pa­nying soft­ware as well. Faced with ever more spe­ci­fic demands, it will conti­nue to spe­cia­lise. In other words, they will grow more com­plex in terms of power and avai­lable options, while beco­ming easier to use. Today, inter­faces are alrea­dy much more prac­ti­cal than they were 10 years ago.

Tech­ni­cal limi­ta­tions are due to machines. But here, again, pri­vate users bene­fit from a gro­wing open­ness of addi­tive manu­fac­tu­ring tech­no­lo­gies, whose cost have consi­de­ra­bly lowe­red these past few years. We now find high-qua­li­ty 3D prin­ters that cost as lit­tle as 500€. They are reliable, easy to use and can even com­pete with pro­fes­sio­nal machines.

What risks does 3D prin­ting represent in terms of coun­ter­fei­ting or pirating ?

Coun­ter­fei­ting is a real issue that needs tho­rough reflec­tion because 3D prin­ting has the poten­tial to dis­rupt the balance bet­ween indus­trial pro­duc­tion and end users. But does that neces­sa­ri­ly make it a bad thing ? No, I don’t think so.

Last March, at the begin­ning of the Covid-19 pan­de­mic, the Ita­lian start-up com­pa­ny Ison­no­va made a name for itself with the gene­ral public by copying then dis­tri­bu­ting ven­ti­la­tor valves to hos­pi­tals because the com­pa­ny making them could not keep up with pro­duc­tion. Their actions saved lives yet expo­sed them to pos­sible law­suits. Can we talk about coun­ter­fei­ting in such a case ? I think, on the contra­ry, that this tool improves a more equal balance bet­ween pro­duc­tion lines and consu­mers. It gives end-users grea­ter power over their envi­ron­ment by allo­wing them to pro­duce what they need by themselves.

You can easi­ly find the 3D model of an object that has alrea­dy been crea­ted by ano­ther user using an open-access data­base on the Inter­net. Some com­pa­nies have unders­tood this and are playing along. They offer 3D models of their spare parts, making them avai­lable to repair ageing devices, and thus help in the fight against plan­ned obsolescence.