3D Objects, Engineering, Sustainability

Stirling Engines

You all have probably heard of the Steam Engine, right? (And chances are you have never seen it; didn’t even bother to look up an image on the internet until now.) It’s something called an external combustion engine, where fuel is burned on the outside of the engine to create steam inside it, so that the steam pushes some object to do work. It’s mostly obsolete now because internal combustion engines have replaced them, et cetera, et cetera.

While the Industrial Revolution was the most happening thing during the 18/19th century, and the Steam Engine was all the rage, there was another type of engine that was going to be the future—the Stirling Engine. But it wasn’t. End of the line for this other weird external combustion engine.

Why is it weird?

If a mister Layman asks, I would say a Stirling Engine is one which will only operate through a difference in the temperature between two points (one inside the engine, the other outside). Doesn’t matter if the point inside the engine is hot and the outside is cold, or vice versa. It will work.

I was refreshing my Solidworks knowledge and found something fun on this youtube channel where this guy assembles a Stirling Engine. It was something I had never heard of before. Naturally, it got me curious to build one. I think it may be possible to animate this one using Composer. But that’s for another time. Below is a Stirling Engine model which takes heat from the outside to work.

There are hundreds of variations of the Stirling engine, and it would seem like an ideal engine to use, as if it would run forever! It barely makes sound while operating, unlike the annoying ones we have to persevere through in the traffic. They are, however, as efficient as a Diesel engine. Some people think these engines can be made into sustainable sources of recycling heat waste, which is pretty cool for the environment.

But no, it still can’t run forever because that’ll break thermodynamics, make Carnot mad, and the universe as we know it will implode if we make Physics angry!

3D Objects, Engineering, Optimizing 3D Prints, Sustainability

Optimizing 3D Prints- Results: Tomography and Morphological Variations (Part 2)

Results: Tomography and Morphological Variations

Using an analysis software available with the scanner called CT-Analyser, it was possible to make measurements to determine the smallest of anomalies in the scanned objects. At first, the thickness of the layers of the scanned objects were measured. The results showed that the thickness was closer to the theoretical value. However, it also showed that each successive layer causes the print material to shrink [3], causing some layers to protrude outside the expected region, affecting the overall dimensions [14], and hence the surface quality, as seen in Fig. 8. The horizontal cross sections of 20% and 80% infill levels show that the infill doesn’t completely meet the wall of the object [12]. As each successive layer is printed, the points where any two paths intersect show a higher amount of PLA deposition.

Fig 8 Uneven surface of a scanned hollow pink cone

The box plots of the average layer thickness in all the scanned objects and the average distance between consecutive edges in cones are compared as shown in Fig. 9. The horizontal lines in the middle of the plots indicate the median value. The layer thickness is a critical factor which directly affects the surface quality [14]. The analysis shows that the layer thickness is close to the mean value, but always lesser than the expected value, indicating shrinkage; this is true for all scanned objects.

For a cone, each successive layer printed must be smaller than the previous layer under it, i.e., as they taper, their size gets consecutively smaller [21], hence the shape tends to worsen. The distances between the edges of two consecutive layers should be constant, since they are right circular cones. However, when this distance is measured using CT-Analyser, the values are highly inconsistent at all infill levels. This is especially visible in the upper layers of the cone in the scans, which can be seen in Fig. 8.

 

Fig. 9 Box plots of various measurements done on the scanned objects.

 

The tomographic images show irregularities in the final few layers of the cones, regardless of the infill. The pigmentation may influence certain properties [23], but they affect the surface quality the least. When the tomographic images from the natural PLA cylinder and pink PLA cylinder were compared, there was little to no difference in the surface evenness of their shell. However, it is to be noted that the insides of the hollow cylinders show the final layers sagging, in turn, leaving unnecessary frizzy material inside the shell, as seen in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 in both pink and natural cylinders.

The infill doesn’t affect the surface quality of the object by much [3,21], as confirmed from the results in Table 2-4. The cylinder has an even surface. Even when it is hollow, the final layers are printed uniformly. The cones are uneven regardless of the infill, and their final layers tend to misalign. This is indicated by the tomographic scans, and the analysis from measuring the distances between two consecutive edges, which shows a high variability. The accompanied video shows the individual layers of a 20% infill pink cone. The transition of each layer (shown in light blue color) reveals unevenness in their edges since they are not perfectly circular, indicating surface roughness. The statistical experiment also repeatedly puts cones in the least ideal configuration, supporting the argument that tapered objects tend to have poorer surface quality.

 

References

References can be found in the Introduction section.

3D Objects, Engineering, Optimizing 3D Prints, Sustainability

Optimizing 3D Prints- Results: Tomography and Morphological Variations (Part 1)

Results: Tomography and Morphological Variations

The X-ray computed tomography shows the differences in the external shell of the prints as well as the internal structure of the infill. Each layer of PLA can be easily observed in the images. For simplicity, the most prominent image from among the hundreds of images in the dataset are represented in the Fig. 5-7. The number on their top right corner is the corresponding image taken from the captured dataset. The blue objects were not scanned due to the insufficiency of time and lengthy scanning process. Fig. 5-7 show one of the hundreds of images captured during the CT scan. The difference in the background colors is because of the adjustments made to get a good contrast wherever necessary.

Fig. 5 X-ray CT scanned images of the outer shell of all objects.

 

Fig. 6 X-ray CT scanned images of the vertical cross section of all objects

 

Fig. 7 X-ray CT scanned images of the horizontal cross section of all objects

 

There are very few differences in the morphological structures of the cylinders of either color with the same infill level. There are, however, variation in the way the infill is printed inside the shell of the objects. It is to be noted that in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, the cross-sectional images with a darker background have a different contrast level than that of the images with lighter background. This happened during image adjustment using the software NRecon, which is used to reconstruct the shadow projections. It does not affect the analysis.

When performing the scans, it might not be possible to capture the entire object as the field of view of the receiver is limited (less than 30 mm). Hence only the top portion of the cone was captured. In the case of the cylinders, again, the top was captured, but since the diameter was around 30mm, the detector could only receive a little over 4/5th of it. So, only a part of the wall can be seen. Again, this does not affect the measurement, as the objects are symmetric about the vertical planes.

 

References

References can be found in the Introduction section.

3D Objects, Engineering

X-Ray Tomography (Part D)

When all the images were finally scanned (seriously, I may have used the CT scanner more than Ph. D. candidates in a few weeks), there is only one process remaining: Analysis (and visualization, and interpretation, and inference, and the write up, and the dataset organization and many more).

The scanned images can be easily saved in popular formats such as png and tiff. This makes them easy to view in commonly available image viewing software which, we all know is Microsoft’s Photo viewer, because Google decided to discontinue Picassa (which is a shame, in my opinion)…

Skyscan comes with its own analysis software called CTAn, which can not only be used to analyze individual images, but also measure tiny flaws if found! Perhaps the most amazing feature is to analyze multiple images at the same time.

When the region of interest is set for an upper limit and lower limit of an image sequence. Threshold can be set for binary images for each image or the entire data sequence to see the histograms. With this, density can be found (i.e. the density of the poly lactic acid that is used to fill in the specimen in this particular case). In the end it is possible to find the mean total value of voxels (simply put, 3 dimensional pixels) and save the calculations if necessary, and it is, because we’re analyzing. Then, use them to calibrate the attenuation and compare results. The same process is repeated for each individual scanned specimen. Quite mind-numbing, but necessary for what I was doing. Below is an example of a high infill colored cone (20%, pink).

A Marked Region of Interest and Histogram of the Dataset of a Colored Cone

Another important feature of CTAn is to show Density Profiles of each slice of image. but the most underrated and less frequently used feature is to perform dimensional measurements, which was the primary focus of the Optimization of 3D Prints project. Dimensions such as layer thickness, empty space areas inside the object, position of each layer, alignment of layers, angle between two subsequent layers, thickness of the shell etc. could be calculated, which was a tedious task to perform (the things we do to seek the truth, am I right?). With this it was possible to do additional statistical analyses.

Example of Dimensional Measurement of a Hollow Colored Cone showing Angle between 2 Layers

Then there is another software called CTVox, which is used to construct a 3 dimensional view (also called volume rendering in this case) of the internal and external morphological features of each specimen. I may upload videos of them in the future, but right now, there is only a picture as each of them can be a whopping 10 giga bytes (and they look beautiful)! Below is an example image of a volume render of a cylinder.

Volume Rendering of a High Infill Cone

It is also possible to create moving Heat Maps in CTAn, if you know what you’re doing, like I showed in this particular post. Heat Maps are very cool (and so are oxymorons)!

With this, I conclude this (slightly comical) mini-series of showing how X-ray Tomography can be done, and how it was used for my project. Sorry, but there is no party (I meant Part-E).

Starting from the next time, we’ll return to Optimization of 3D Prints and finally see how the project ended.

Engineering, Optimizing 3D Prints

Stalling Footage: Specimen inside the CT Scanner

Nothing too exciting this month…

Unfortunately, I have been busy with some other work the past few weeks and didn’t get the chance to write the Part D of my X-Ray Tomography mini-series. To compensate for that I have some footage of how the insides of the CT scanner used looks like with the mechanisms initiated. It is just a small approximately 52 seconds of an animated gif format of the video.

I would like to imagine the scan is going on or I’m performing the analyses while this is happening:

Optimizing 3d Prints Gif that shows the specimen inside the CT scanner.

See you next month with the actual post.

3D Objects, Engineering

X-Ray Tomography (Part C)

There is a good reason why this article is posted after more than one month. This is because I wanted to get a feeling for how long the scan takes in reality and re-live it… (Or, I may have lied and I was busy with something; we’ll likely never find out.)

Now that the scan is over, the images had to be reconstructed to get a 3D map of the scanned specimen. It uses an algorithm that I can’t seem to name, because I didn’t write it down anywhere. Fortunately, I know exactly what it does. It creates slices of images which show the density within the specimen at specific heights (i.e., find out how much empty space there is and how much filled space there is in each sliced layer the object).

The software NRecon was used to reconstruct the captured images into full-fledged 3D images of high quality. A correction must be made for each image to compensate for any deviations caused by the temperature during scanning, while the images were being captured. There are several options available for this procedure. Fortunately, since the scanner itself was new, the corrections were pretty minor.

Density of a Certain Vertical Slice of a Transparent Cylinder

Next is to compensate for beam hardening, if any. This is done to keep the densities flat. After this, would be ring artifact corrections, which is done to rectify the formation of rings in the reconstructed images due to miscalibration of the sensor—we’re all humans, so these things can happen during initial setup. Rings are bad. The images with them can be rectified, however. Below is an example of a ring artifact, which, again, is undesirable. This is especially true if your image begins to look like a vinyl record…

Ring Artifacts Formation in the Horizontal Slice of a Cone

There is a tool for reducing noise in the image and smoothening them. The images can then finally be saved in various formats. Saved images can then be visualized and analyzed using other software. I have my images in BMP and TIFF formats.

Fortunately, batch processing of reconstruction is an option and large quantities of obtained images can be corrected and reconstructed with the click of a button, once the settings are ready. Imagine sitting and having to reconstruct each individual image, then save them, and then analyze them… it would take months, especially if the resolution is 4K!

The reconstruction process was done for 4 types of infill levels for colored cones, and both transparent and colored cylinders (a grand total of 12 types of data sets with 3 sub types within them, each) in my project. That genuinely took a lot of time.

With this, we end another part on this extremely interesting process of reconstruction. It looks short when you read it, but it is ridiculously convoluted, especially if you’re doing it for the first time. Next time we will talk about visualizing the images in 2D and 3D, and maybe a bit on how to analyze them.

3D Objects, Engineering

X-Ray Tomography (Part B)

Now to start the scan.

Nope. Not yet. We have some housekeeping to do, before that happens.

The base of each specimen was flat enough that no additional materials (like wax) was needed to hold it in place. The paraffin film did a good job of keeping these relatively large (when compared to the X-Rays, of course) objects in one spot. Good. Now the specimen is in its place and its stage is mounted inside the scanning chamber. Close the door—safety first, remember? Yes, yes you do—and prepare for the beam to energize.

One of the advantages of living in today’s world is that you can make a software control your hardware without having to manually adjust things. Apparently, when they wanted to do these experiments, in the olden days, they used to manually adjust the stages for each performance (no, that was a lie). The SkyScan software was used to adjust position of the specimen—vertical, horizontal, radial, you name it.

It was necessary to adjust the voltage and current, so that the power of the X-Rays emitted but the emitter gun would always be around 10 watts and never exceeded it. This was done to adjust the contrast of the images. The voltage and current were 44 kV and 222 μA for this experiment. (Psssttt… multiply the two to get the power).

Next was an important step called Flat Field Correction, which I’m fondly going to call FFC and never use it again. This step is used to have a uniform brightness in the background and calibrate the sensor on the other side. This was when the resolution, pixel size, etc. had to be chosen.

And finally, it was time to scan. The step angle of the stage’s rotation was set to an appropriate amount to not waste the time. Smaller the angle, longer the scanning time. I’ve seen some scans happen for days!

The camera sensor was set to capture multiple images during each rotation step and average them out to reduce errors and smoothen the final image by a process called Frame Averaging. There was also Random Movement correction to take care of any dead pixels, because cameras are dainty and don’t age well.

As far as I can remember, there was also an option to turn the X-Ray off or leave it on after the scan ends—off should technically have been the only option… because we’re talking about X-Rays here.

Alright! Now, the scan has begun, and below is an image of the Scanner preparing to do its thing.

Here are some of the details I collected from the log file, because obviously, I can’t remember everything that happened in August 2017 at them moment (Yes, that was when the scan was done, and the actual project had started months before that):

Source Type = Hamamatsu 100/250
Camera = SHT 11Mp camera
Camera Pixel Size (μm) =    9.00

Source Voltage (kV) = 44
Source Current (μA) = 222

Frame Averaging = ON (6)
Random Movement = ON (8)
Vertical Object Position
(mm) =33.693
Exposure (ms) =   238
Rotation Step (deg) =0.300

These are only some of the setting. There were more; I just don’t want to make these posts extremely technical. More stuff on reconstruction, visualizations, and analyses another time.

3D Objects, Engineering

X-Ray Tomography (Part A)

X-Ray Computed Tomography is a technique constantly used in medical imaging. You might have heard about CT Scans… Sounds very Sciencey, Medical, and Technical. Because, it is. The CT in CT Scans is short for Computed Tomography. CT Scans can also have non-medical application. For example, seeing what is inside of non-living things, like 3D printed objects—my topic of interest in this instance.

Why am I explaining something I had previously mentioned in a post (kind of)?

Because this is a filler post!

No, it’s not a filler, but I wanted to explain how exactly I did the Tomographic scans of the 3 D printed objects for the Optimization of 3D Prints project, before completing its story through more posts.

The CT Scanner used during the whole process of analyzing the 3D objects was Skyscan 1172 Micro-CT Scanner. Before beginning a scan, safety precautions must be taken, everything should be kept clean, the scanner must be hooked to a computer with powerful graphics card, relevant software must be installed, and this is very important—the power must be turned On. Of course, the machine is designed with all the safety measures taken into consideration. In fact, the X-ray source won’t work if the compartment (look at the image below) is open, even if it is told to start the operation by the software. But still, the most important thing to keep in mind is that the machine is a powerful source of X-Rays, so safety first!

Now we are ready to place the object of interest (which we usually call, a specimen) on one of the many pedestal-types (they are also called stages for some reason, as if the camera is taking the photos of some super model) for the specimen to be scanned, which in this case would be all the different types of printed objects of different infill. The specimen was covered in a paraffin sheet to keep it in place. Paraffin sheet is used because it is transparent to the X-Rays (i.e., the X-Rays ignore it, like a person ignores their ex). These initial settings are a bit convoluted, but they must be performed to capture good quality images without the formation of unnecessary rings in the final images (for now, take my word for it, I know what I’m saying when it come to this). The Skyscan1172 software helps in doing all of these initial operations such as adjusting the voltage and power levels, adjusting the pixel size of the images to be captured, the field of view, position of the object, and other relevant parameters can be adjusted with the software.

Inside the CT Scanner

I don’t want to make this post boring with even more technical details, so in a layman’s example, the setup can be seen (in the image above) for a cylinder inside the compartment of the CT scanner. Behind the cylinder is the camera/sensor, and on the left side (the open square box), is the X-Ray source. More on the technical aspects another day. (Because I want to try and explain some of the details about why this process is complicated and takes time, and the analysis of the data obtained from this takes even more time).

Once the images are captured, certain settings need to be adjusted and images must form the whole picture in the end for analysis: size of the image to be captured, position of the camera, etc. This and more can be done in a software meant to be used with the CT scanner called NRecon. The software shows a captured image. As an example, the image (see below), shows the frustum of a cone when observed by the sensor at a particular angle.

The turn-table-pedestal-stage-thing will rotate the specimen as the stationary sensor captures sectional images, while all along, the source showers the specimen with X-Ray beams. These images are reconstructed using NRecon, where the HSI levels, contrast and other adjustments need to be made before reconstruction of captured image for analysis. 1000 images each were captured for a variety of infill levels and objects of different shapes in my project (Honestly, this number is nothing. You should see the Biology researchers have a go at it for the real deal). The image below shows a snapshot of some of the settings chosen, which was kept constant for all the different objects.

A Snapshot of NRecon in Use

In Part B, I’ll get to the real stuff: the Process of Everything!


P.S.: You guessed it right, this post was supposed to come out a week ago, and it did! However, due to unforeseen circumstances, I couldn’t finish writing it. Unfortunately, the draft was scheduled to be published back then. Even what’s written in this article is incomplete, which is obvious from the Part A in the title. I need more time to finish Part B. Who knows, there might even be a Part C, Part D… Party! We’ll see… Woe is me…

 

3D Objects, Engineering, Optimizing 3D Prints, Sustainability

Optimizing 3D Prints: Results: Optimum Configurations for 3D Printing (Part 2)

Results: Optimum Configurations for 3D Printing

The summary of optimal settings obtained in the case of Experiment-1 and Experiment-2 can be found in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. It shows the most ideal and least ideal configurations to use when it comes to choosing between the factors. It also shows which factors, or the factorial interactions contribute to the printed object in a statistically significant manner. This indicates the user to keep an eye on them.

Infill (Factor B) Most Ideal Configuration Least Ideal Configuration Statistically Significant Factors
Low High Height Base Area Height Base Area Height Base Area
Hollow 20% Natural

20%

None

Natural

20%

None

Natural

20%

Tapered

Natural

Hollow

Tapered

C No

Factors

Hollow 80% Natural

80%

None

Natural

80%

None

Pink

80%

Tapered

Natural

80%

Tapered

C B
Hollow Solid Natural

Solid

None

Pink

Solid

None

Pink

Solid

Tapered

Natural

Solid

Tapered

No

Factors

No

Factors

20% 80% Pink

80%

None

Pink

80%

Tapered

Pink

80%

Tapered

Natural

80%

Tapered

A, C

A*C

A*B*C

A

A*B, A*C

A*B*C

20% Solid Natural

Solid

None

Pink

20%

None

Pink

20%

Tapered

Natural

Solid

Tapered

A, C

B*C

B
80% Solid Natural

80%

None

Natural

80%

None

Pink

80%

Tapered

Pink

80%

Tapered

A, C B, C

A*C

Table 2 Summary of the results of the optimal configurations of Experiment-1

 

Infill (Factor B)

Most Ideal Configuration Least Ideal Configuration

Statistically Significant Factors

Low High Height Base Area Height Base Area Height Base Area
Hollow 20% Natural

Hollow

None

Natural

20%

None

Natural

Hollow

Tapered

Blue

20%

Tapered

C

A*C

B
Hollow 80% Natural

80%

None

Natural

80%

None

Natural

Hollow

Tapered

Natural

Hollow

None

C B, C

B*C

Hollow Solid Natural

Solid

None

Natural

Solid

None

Natural

Hollow

Tapered

Blue

Solid

Tapered

C

A*C

A

A*B, B*C

20% 80% Natural

80%

None

Natural

80%

None

Natural

20%

Tapered

Blue

20%

Tapered

C

A*C

A*B*C

C

A*B

20% Solid Natural

Solid

None

Natural

20%

None

Natural

20%

Tapered

Blue

Solid

Tapered

C

A*C

A, B, C
80% Solid Natural

80%

None

Natural

80%

None

Blue

80%

Tapered

Blue

Solid

Tapered

A, C

A*B, A*C

A*B*C

B, C

A*B

Table 3 Summary of the results of the optimal configurations of Experiment-2

 

When color pigments are added to natural PLA, some of its properties such as crystallinity is affected [25], leading to variation in the way the material prints. Hence, a similar experiment was performed with two different pigmentations of PLA. Factor A’s levels were changed to pink and blue. However, other factors and the settings were kept the same. The expected values also remained the same. Table 4 shows the optimal configurations for the Experiment-3.

 

Infill (Factor B)

Most Ideal Configuration Least Ideal Configuration

Statistically Significant Factors

Low High Height Base Area Height Base Area Height Base Area
Hollow 20% Blue

20%

None

Pink

20%

None

Blue

Hollow

Tapered

Blue

20%

Tapered

No Factors No

Factors

Hollow 80% Blue

80%

None

Pink

80%

Tapered

Pink

80%

Tapered

Blue

Hollow

Tapered

No Factors B
Hollow Solid Blue

Hollow

None

Pink

Solid

None

Blue

Solid

Tapered

Blue

Solid

Tapered

No Factors No

Factors

20% 80% Blue

80%

None

Pink

80%

Tapered

Pink

80%

Tapered

Blue

20%

Tapered

A, C

A* C

A, B, C

A* C

20% Solid Blue

Solid

None

Pink

20%

None

Pink

20%

Tapered

Pink

Solid

Tapered

A, C

A* C

A, B, C

 

80% Solid Blue

Solid

None

Pink

80%

Tapered

Pink

80%

Tapered

Blue

Solid

Tapered

A, B, C

A*C, B*C

A, B, C

A*C

A*B*C

Table 4 Summary of the results of the optimal configurations of Experiment-3

 

The data from Table 2-4 show that tapered objects should have a lower priority while 3D printing. The bigger the shape, the more accurate the overall geometry [20], hence the cones can clearly be seen having the least ideal configuration in all cases, because the size of each successive layer reduces since they taper. Also, objects printed using natural PLA are consistently seen in the most ideal configuration columns in Table 2-3, making it preferable when compared to its colored counterparts. Choosing the settings available in Tables 2-4 could prove beneficial to reduce filament wastage while printing using PLA.

 

References

References can be found in the Introduction section.

3D Objects, Engineering, Optimizing 3D Prints, Sustainability

Optimizing 3D Prints: Results: Optimum Configurations for 3D Printing (Part 1)

Results: Optimum Configurations for 3D Printing

When the factorial analysis was performed, each of the three experiments had six sub-experiments for every combination of the infill level. Each of these sub-experiments produced graphs and charts for further analyses to obtain the sets of optimal configurations. Fig. 3 shows one example with the pareto chart and cube plot in the case of the second experiment with an infill setting of 20% and 80%. Fig. 4 shows the main effect and interaction among factors with an infill setting of 20% and 80% in the case of Experiment-1. All the relevant graphs and charts can be found in the supplementary material.

The ideal configuration was determined by comparing the fitted means from the cube plot to the expected value. The expected value for the height was 30 mm and for base area was 706.8583 mm2. The pareto chart shows the statistically significant factors in Fig. 3. The statistically significant factors indicate that the differences between these groups are not simply due to a chance and are real, this can be said with a confidence level of 95%, since all the obtained data was normally distributed [18,19].

 

Fig. 3 Pareto chart and cube plot of 20% and 80% infill for height (top) and base area (bottom) in Experiment-2.

 

The experimental factors can show effects such as main effect and interaction effects. The main effect is the effect of one factor on the experiment while ignoring the effects by all other factors. It shows how much the average performance of one level differs from the average performance of another level [18,19].

In different settings, different factors show main effect. For example, the plot in Fig. 3 indicates that the infill factor doesn’t show main effect, because the plot is nearly parallel to the central line of average. However, the color and the shape of the object show a significant level of main effect.

In the case of the interaction plot, which shows whether one factor affects another [18,19], the graphs make it very clear that the tendency to interact is high when the lines are intersecting. Henceforth, if two or more factors interact, they are indicated using an asterisk between them.

 

Fig. 4 Main effects and interaction of 20% and 80% infill for height (top) and base area (bottom) in Experiment-1.

 

References

References can be found in the Introduction section.