Author Archives: Harris Longfield

The Lincoln Logs: Printing for the WCMA’s Emancipation Exhibition

Posted on by

Introduction: 

WCMA’s “Emancipation: The Unfinished Project of Liberation” exhibit

“Emancipation” exhibit

My most recent Makerspace academic project was assisting Beth Fischer, Assistant Curator of Digital Learning and Research for the Williams College Museum of Art. My task was to 3D print replicas of two sculptures of President Lincoln—Sarah Fisher Ames’ bust of Lincoln and the iconic Abraham Lincoln Life Mask by Clark Mill—as part of the WCMA’s “Emancipation: The Unfinished Project of Liberation” exhibits. These two models complement the work of Hugh Hayden, also present at Emancipation, who incorporates PLA prints into his artistic process. The exhibit emphasizes 3D printing as a relatively accessible medium for creativity and showcases different ways it can assist other styles of art, particularly molds.

Setup 

The two photogrammetry-based 3D models were gorgeous. They defined every ridge, bump, and strand of hair on Lincoln’s head while carrying the texture of the clay, but it was this beauty that posed a challenge. The multidimensional texture in clay is hard to depict using horizontal layers of filament, which is how 3D printers print. Although not a solution, a remedy to this problem was using a hybrid filament – part ceramic and part PLA. Although this filament can’t recreate the vertical complexity of a sculpted model’s texture, it provides a smoother, heavier finish that better resembles the original material. 

We had some leftover StoneFil filament from a previous project, but we knew we would need more to complete both prints. The question was how much more. We did not know how much filament remained on the spools and there was no specific size requested – simply that the two models remain proportional and be as large as possible. 

Naturally, as a math major, I took this as a challenge to maximize the size we could print with only one additional spool of filament. First, I printed two smaller models, noted their xyz scaling, and measured the distance from the nose to the chin. I then used those measurements to find the scale between the height of one and the length of the other. Then, given that scaling, I noted the estimated combined length of the models at a few different sizes and found the factor at which the necessary filament would scale in comparison to the size. In theory, I could approximate the maximum print size given the length of the filament we had left and the spool arriving soon. There was only one problem – we didn’t know how much filament we had. We could weigh the filament, but any statement on the spool-to-filament proportion would’ve been guesswork. 

That was when another Makerspace student worker, Elena Sore, had an idea to create a reference guide for the weight of empty filament spools. We use a variety of brands of filament, and each has a different sized spool. Now, when we finish a spool, we weigh it and enter it into a spreadsheet, allowing us to measure the amount of filament remaining on any given spool by subtracting the spool from the overall weight. 

Printing and Troubleshooting

The final bust with its supports still attached

The final bust with its supports still attached

The time came to print the models. I had decided on the heights 140mm and 93.15, which would give us just enough filament to print both models with enough to spare to be able to still print one more, just in case of failure. I sliced and started the print of the bust and 20 hours later, it came out well. There were a few small holes that indicated mild under-extrusion, but they were not too distracting and the WCMA was interested in showcasing the uniqueness of 3-D prints, so I was perfectly content with the model. 

The second print was not as fortunate. Externally, it looked fine, except the under-extrusion was more visible than the first model. Before removing the model from the plate, I started googling remedies for under-extrusion because I was concerned that I didn’t have enough filament to endure another failure. I recalibrated the printer, increased the nozzle temperature, slightly decreased the printing speed, and ran another mini model with ordinary PLA. It came out perfectly – and that worried me because I was nervous that the problem was with the ceramic filament, which was a requirement for the project. Eventually, I stumbled onto a solution by turning the StoneFil model upside down to examine the supports, and to my shock, I found that they were completely “spaghettified”. The supports had completely failed and were just a mess of tangled filament. I was impressed that the print had managed to build at all. 

The under-extrusion was far more noticeable on the first print of the mask than the bust.

The under-extrusion was far more noticeable on the first print of the mask than the bust.

Exhibition: “Feel free to pick up and touch these reduced-scale 3D prints of Abraham Lincoln!”

Exhibition: “Feel free to pick up and touch these reduced-scale 3D prints of Abraham Lincoln!”

I spent some time in different slicing softwares, trying to optimize the supports. It took (admittedly longer than it should have) to realize that with supports as dense as the model requested, this was a rare case where it would be more filament-efficient and less failure-prone to fill the space underneath the mask with infill, instead of supports. This was the solution we went with, and the bust printed perfectly.

While weighing the options for the final print, David Keiser-Clark, Makerspace Program Manager, and I brainstormed ways of filling in the holes caused by under-extrusion. Our favorite idea, and the only experiment we ran, was using a heat gun to melt a tiny bit of StoneFil filament into the hole and then sand down the excess. It was good in theory, and fun to try, but not entirely effective because it looked like a visible patch. This is because 3D printing filament solidifies incredibly fast after cooling, and we would have needed to either pour a liquid into the hold and/or do a tremendous amount of sanding afterward.

Conclusion

Coincidentally, as the final prints started, I again fell very ill and had to return home for the week and did not get to hand off the pieces. However, I did get the chance to go to the Emancipation exhibit and see the final results. The space itself was a moving experience, and I would strongly encourage anybody to visit or read about the exhibition and its incorporation of 3D printing. This was a fun project to complete during Winter Study, and I got the chance to answer a lot of looming questions about 3D printing during it. I learned a lot about the balance of layer height, print speed, and temperature, I’m excited to see what else we can do with our filament data log, and melting PLA with the heat gun was so much fun that I may try to find a way to make it practical. Although, I must admit, my favorite part of this project is the little Lincoln that found himself a home in my dorm.

An early, miniature prototype that now adorns my desk as a reminder of my work on this WCMA project!

An early, miniature prototype that now adorns my desk as a reminder of my work on this WCMA project!

Architecture in Slices: 3D Printing for the Big Art Show.

Posted on by
The Arts 314 exhibit in the Big Art Show

The Arts 314 exhibit in the Big Art Show

In my first Makerspace academic project, I jumped into the deep end. My role was to support Giuseppina Forte, the Assistant Professor of Architecture and Environmental Studies, and her students by preparing exhibition materials for the end-of-semester campus Big Art Show. I supported her two studio arts classes “Design for the Pluriverse: Architecture, Urban Design, and Difference” (ARTS 314/ENVI 310) and “Governing Cities by Design: the Built Environment as a Technology of Space” (ARTS 316/ENVI 316). For ARTS 314, her students designed an architectural model of an outdoor community building, and for ARTS 316, they re-envisioned the Cole Avenue Rail Yard area of Williamstown into a river-side park. My role was to convert the students’ digital architectural designs into 3D-printed objects. What seemed straightforward quickly became a challenging—and amazing—learning experience filled with challenges and growth that I want to share. 

Prototyping

The first of many difficulties arose when I sliced, or readied, the models for the 3D printers. First, some files seemed to have problematic features deeper than the abilities of the FlashForge and Prusa slicer software repair algorithms. So, I spent some time learning MeshMixer and how to identify the Achilles heels of the models. In most cases, manually widening thin connections was sufficient. Second, some prints seemed impractical, if not entirely impossible. In some cases, these impractical features were easily removable without destroying the final product, like thin columns on B3. In others, features were inherent to the design, such as with A1, which posed a challenge for 3D printing due to its elevated, thin, and intricate spiral design. Finally, some prints, like B2, would just take an incredibly long time to print – up to 60 hours.

The models I would print. From top left to bottom right: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, S1, S2, B1.

The models I would print. From top left to bottom right: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, S1, S2, B1.

A prototype of A2

A prototype of A2

In a typical project, I would prototype each print and present them before starting any final prints. This helps to set expectations for what a 3D print looks like, how the pieces go together and allows me to get feedback on the prints. However, these prints proved particularly challenging to prototype for the above reasons. While I could get a couple of iterations of the simpler prints, many prints proved difficult to scale down due to their small and intricate details, and, in my mind, no prototype is worth 40 hours or 100 meters of filament because of the likelihood of repeated failed prints.

Crunch Time

For prints with exposed, flat surfaces like A4, printing upside down provided a smoother finish and allowed the prints to peel off of the plate more consistently

For prints with exposed, flat surfaces like A4, printing upside down provided a smoother finish and allowed the prints to peel off of the plate more consistently

However, dilly-dallying in this “half-prototyping” stage created a problem. Since I was hesitant to review an incomplete set with everyone, I mentally stayed in the prototyping phase, not starting any of the final prints. Instead, I spent this time optimizing the prints that I hadn’t been able to prototype. I ran tests to maximize the quality of the print while minimizing the filament used. While I can’t say that this time was wasted, since many of the optimizations helped me later, in hindsight, I wish that I had paid more attention to the time and started my final prints sooner, as I could have prevented much of the stress in the final time crunch.

 

 

I found that I was able to go as low as 8% infill on solid prints before jeapordizing structural integrity.

I found that I was able to go as low as 8% infill on solid prints before jeapordizing structural integrity.

The final week and a half of the project was a combination of epic stress and stellar production. It started with David Keiser-Clark, the Makerspace Program Manager, asking me if I thought it would be possible to finish and deliver the prints before the start of the show in nine days. I panicked. I had become so immersed in solving the technical issues that I had lost track of the delivery date. I sat down and figured out that the total printing time for this project would take ~240 hours. Had I immediately started two prints on the two working printers and ran them 24/7, the prints would have only finished three or four days before the deadline. I immediately put two prints on the printer and responded to David, cautiously telling him I thought I could finish them in time. 

A spectacular failure of one of the prints

A spectacular failure of one of the prints

My estimates couldn’t have been more wrong. My first two prints should have been relatively quick and easy, but when I returned to collect them I was greeted by two spaghettified clumps of white PLA. I reran both prints, praying that they were flukes, but of course, they weren’t. Within 5 minutes, both prints had failed again. I did a 20-minute calibration of both printers and reran the prints: the print in the FlashForge was successful, but the Prusa failed again. Time was slipping away, and only one printer was operating reliably. 

 

Removing Roadblocks

All four printers running smoothly!

All four printers running smoothly!

I reached out to David and explained the issue. He helped me configure the two out-of-commission Dremel printers, which seemed to be my saving grace. However, I transferred my slices to the Dremel and found that many of the round prints were larger than the Dremel’s base plate. This, combined with the fact that the Dremels struggled with finer detail in test prints added to my stress. However, after examining the models, I found that I could cut the larger files into smaller pieces, print them, and then later assemble and permanently glue them together. 

The final print of A2 and the tops of S1 and S2, unfortunately printed in different sizes.

The final print of A2 and the tops of S1 and S2, unfortunately printed in different sizes.

Six days before the show we had four working printers. The Prusa had been fixed (twice) and was churning out the finer detailed prints. The FlashForge was working on a piece of the largest print, which I had cut down to 30 hours (from 48) by increasing the layer height to the maximum of 0.3mm (75% of the nozzle diameter). Both Dremels were printing the remaining pieces of the largest print and we had received permission to use the Science Shop’s Ultimaker for A1, which was the most challenging, longest-running, and most likely-to-fail print in the entire project. For a moment, it looked as if the project would be done comfortably in time, with several days of cushion to spare.

Using natural supports used less filament, took less time, and failed less than vertical supports

Using natural supports used less filament, took less time, and failed less than vertical supports

One day later the situation flipped on its head. The filament for the Ultimaker, ordered in advance, failed to arrive. Three prints in the Makerspace failed. The filament roll on the FlashForge got tangled and caused a jam, the Prusa had spaghettified, and one Dremel printed the house sans the roof. I was able to find and solve a problem within the Dremel slicer software and recalibrate the Prusa, but for now, the FlashForge was out of commission. 

In hindsight, I had not anticipated the variance in scaling among different slicing softwares. The Dremel software defines its x-axis differently than the FlashForge software, which resulted in pieces that scaled poorly with the rest of the model. 

A copy of A1 printing on the FlashForge 1 day before delivery.

A copy of A1 printing on the FlashForge 1 day before delivery.

Three days before the show, I had somehow managed to print A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, and B3. We fixed the Dremel and set the most structurally fragile and complicated print (A1) to run overnight on all four printers. This would be our last chance. 

One day before the show, our final prints were completed: the Prusa and FlashForge succeeded, while both the Dremels failed. Of the two successful prints, the Prusa created a beautiful, highly detailed print. Unfortunately, I woke up with the flu and didn’t get to say goodbye to the prints, nor could I go to the Big Art Show. However, I got to see pictures and I was proud to support the students’ architectural work for the show, but, to me, the greatest value of this project was not in the prints themselves, but in the lessons that I learned and that I will take with me into my future work both in and out of the classroom. Specifically, I developed confidence in my ability to solve technical problems in a new medium while working under pressure and improved my capacities in project management.

The final collection of pieces

The final collection of pieces

Murphy’s Law

The Arts 316 exhibit in the Big Art Show

The Arts 316 exhibit in the Big Art Show

Murphy’s Law states that when something can go wrong, it will. Doubly so when you are under a time crunch. In hindsight, most of this pressure could have been avoided had I made an effort to timeline the project before the due date was imminent. When printing, you have to strike a balance between quality, material used, and time. Before the time crunch, I was trying to maximize quality and minimize the material used. However, the instant time became the driving factor, I swapped those priorities. All in all, it worked out, but if I had managed my time better I likely could have delivered just as good of a final product with less stress. 

Post Mortem

During this project, I discovered how fragile 3D printers are. We had four printers in the Makerspace, and I had to do a total of eight mechanical fixes. At some points, I felt completely defeated. It seemed like every successful print was counterbalanced by an awful grinding sound or a jammed PLA feed. This was not the first time I had ever 3D printed, but it was my first time tinkering with 3D printers. Admittedly, at the start of the project, I was so scared of breaking something that I barely opened the side panel before asking for help. The silver lining of the printers breaking so often was that I had the opportunity to learn how to fix them. During the project, David took a few hours to show me around each printer, explaining how they work and where they usually fail. This paid itself off in dividends. By the end of the project, I was more than comfortable repairing every single printer we had and reached a point where I didn’t even have to tell David when they were broken, likely saving him more time than it took to help me figure out how all of them work. I’m excited to take this experience and apply it to my next faculty project in the Makerspace.