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.