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.