| Literature DB >> 29747458 |
Enrique Soriano Heras1, Fernando Blaya Haro2, José M de Agustín Del Burgo3, Manuel Islán Marcos4, Roberto D'Amato5.
Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to present a system to detect extrusion failures in fused deposition modelling (FDM) 3D printers by sensing that the filament is moving forward properly. After several years using these kind of machines, authors detected that there is not any system to detect the main problem in FDM machines. Authors thought in different sensors and used the weighted objectives method, one of the most common evaluation methods, for comparing design concepts based on an overall value per design concept. Taking into account the obtained scores of each specification, the best choice for this work is the optical encoder. Once the sensor is chosen, it is necessary to design de part where it will be installed without interfering with the normal function of the machine. To do it, photogrammetry scanning methodology was employed. The developed device perfectly detects the advance of the filament without affecting the normal operation of the machine. Also, it is achieved the primary objective of the system, avoiding loss of material, energy, and mechanical wear, keeping the premise of making a low-cost product that does not significantly increase the cost of the machine. This development has made it possible to use the printer with remains of coil filaments, which were not spent because they were not sufficient to complete an impression. Also, printing models in two colours with only one extruder has been enabled by this development.Entities:
Keywords: extrusion failures; filament jams; fused deposition; manufacturing system; photogrammetry; rapid prototyping
Year: 2018 PMID: 29747458 PMCID: PMC5982415 DOI: 10.3390/s18051495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Defects in a filament sample.
Filament detection sensor evaluation.
| Sensor | E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | E6 | Amount | Compensation | Weight | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | 0.0 | 0,0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.167 | 16.67 | |
| 1.0 | X | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 0.233 | 23.33 | |
| 1.0 | 0.5 | X | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 0.267 | 26.67 | |
| 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | X | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.133 | 13.33 | |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | X | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.167 | 16.67 | |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | X | 2.5 | 3.5 | 0.233 | 23.33 | |
| 9.5 | 14.5 | 0.967 | 96.67 |
Sensor marks.
| Sensor 1 | Mark | Satisfaction | Final Mark | Sensor 2 | Mark | Satisfaction | Final Mark | Sensor 3 | Mark | Satisfaction | Final Mark |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | 16.67 | 100% | 16.67 | E1 | 16.67 | 100% | 16.67 | E1 | 16.67 | 100% | 16.67 |
| E2 | 23.33 | 0% | 0.00 | E2 | 23.33 | 100% | 23.33 | E2 | 23.33 | 100% | 23.33 |
| E3 | 26.67 | 100% | 26.67 | E3 | 26.67 | 25% | 6.67 | E3 | 26.67 | 100% | 26.67 |
| E4 | 13.33 | 100% | 13.33 | E4 | 13.33 | 75% | 10.00 | E4 | 13.33 | 75% | 10.00 |
| E5 | 16.67 | 100% | 16.67 | E5 | 13.33 | 75% | 10.00 | E5 | 13.33 | 75% | 10.00 |
| E6 | 23.33 | 75% | 17.50 | E6 | 16.67 | 75% | 12.50 | E6 | 16.67 | 50% | 8.33 |
| Total | 73.33 | Total | 79.17 | Total | 95.00 |
Figure 2Images for photogrammetry process: (a) Real figure; (b) point cloud; (c) and (d) digital model.
Figure 3Real product: (a) Optimal design model; (b) and (c) Real product made with a 3D printer.
Figure 4Diameter variation for four different filament providers (A, B, C, D).
Maximum, minimum, and mean of filaments.
| Provider | Maximum (mm) | Minimum (mm) | Mean (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.85 | 1.59 | 1.68 |
| B | 1.8 | 1.67 | 1.75 |
| C | 1.84 | 1.56 | 1.75 |
| D | 1.83 | 1.59 | 1.78 |
Error menu.
| Filament error. Push the button to change the filament. |
| Extract the filament when the motor stopes. |
| Insert the new filament and push the button. |
| When you see come out the filament, press the button to continue printing. |
Figure 5Model produced after five filament advance problems.