Peel-able support?

One of the few advantages commercial FFF machines have over Reprap at the moment is that breakaway support works much better. In particular the UP printer from PP3DP is reputed to have easily removable support using only the same material it builds with, i.e. ABS.

Today I was redesigning the Mendel90 ribbon clamps to have nut traps to make assembly easier and came up with this design: -

I thought I could print it using the bridging ability to span the slot in the base but it failed abysmally. I think it is because it is so close to the heated bed the bridge sags a lot more that it would normally do.

I tried the support option in Skeinforge but I have never got it to work well. It puts a sparse zigzag under the bridge and the flow rate can be reduced to make it weak. The problem is then that when it is removed the top layer of the support bonds more strongly to the part above than that it does to the support below, so it gets left behind. Worse still the bottom layer of the object is more strongly attached to the top of the support than it is to the layer above, so it is very hard to remove just the support.

I think the reason for this is that when the support is sparse the layer above drapes down in between the gaps. That reduces its contact to the layer above and increases its contact to the layer below. This sketch illustrates my theory: -

When I watch videos of the UP printer it looks like the top of the support is solid and flat. This reminds me of the way I used to do rafts. I made the top layer of the raft almost solid and raised the bottom layer of the object a little to make it peel-able. Indeed support is just the same as a raft, it is just that it is elevated.

To test the theory I hacked my host software to load a separate file for the support so that it could be sliced as a normal object and so have a solid top. It also has a solid base of course, which is another advantage over Skeinforge's sparse support as that can easily become detached from the bed.

When extruding I did the support for each layer before the object's layer and did it a bit lower. I also missed off the outline to give a gap of one filament width at the ends. I worked out the diameter that the object's infill would be if it was not squashed into an oval. I offset the support downwards by the difference between that diameter and the normal layer height. That means that when extruding the underside of the object that is being supported the filament is not being squashed, so has minimum contact with the support. It doesn't droop though and the next object layer is squashed against it making the bond above stronger.

The bottom layer of the support is thinner than the rest because of the downwards offset, so I had to reduce the flow rate accordingly. 

It wasn't peel-able by hand but I could separate it cleanly with a penknife, something I have not been able to do before.

The bottom layer of the bridge has round filaments that do not touch (as they are not as wide as they should be) but that is always the case with bridges. The difference is they do not droop and are well bonded to the layer above.

They are of course a little lower than they should be. A better scheme might be to have the support at normal height and raise the head as it passes over it. That would give even better bonding to the layer above which would tend to fill in the gaps. It would need rapid Z movements though.

I would be interested to see what the bottom of a supported surface of an object from an UP printer looks like.

To test the idea further I tried making a sphere. I made the support in OpenScad by subtracting it from a cylinder. To get some lateral clearance I did a Minkowski sum of the sphere with a thin disk.

$fa = 10;

R = 20;
clearance = 0.5;
h = R - R * cos(60);

module sp()
    translate([0, 0, R])
        sphere(R);
 
if(0)
    sp();
else
    difference() {
        translate([0, 0, h / 2])
            cylinder(r = (R * sin(60) + 2), h = h, center = true);
        minkowski() {
            sp();
           cylinder(r = clearance, h = 0.01, center = true);
        }
    }
 
color("red") sp(); 

The support was pretty difficult to remove because it ended up quite dense as Skeinforge makes solid layers when there are shallow sloping sides. Also the sparse infill ends join up to make a complete outline. It is more a proof of concept rather than a practical way to make support.

This is the underside of the sphere where it met the support. It looks quite good but above it there is some distortion to the spherical shape that I cannot explain.

So I think having a solid top surface on top of sparse support is the way to go and a dense bottom layer to anchor it to the bed. In between it can be very sparse but it would then need several solid layers to become flat.

It still takes some effort to remove, so I don't know if it is as good as the UP support yet. The difference may be the plastic.

Hacking with Erik

Erik de Bruijn (RepRap evangelist) is in the UK at the moment visiting Salford and Nottingham universities to spread the word. Yesterday he came here to see HydraRaptor. We spent a very interesting afternoon and evening, swapping extruder ideas, comparing objects we had made, and doing a couple of very successful experiments.

The first was something I had been wanting to try for a long time, and that was reversing the extruder drive to stop ooze. My latest extruder (details to follow) has a much smaller melt chamber but still has significant ooze when extruding PLA. Erik is pursuing the Bowden extruder idea, which should benefit even more from reversing.

Because my machine is controlled by Python, rather than g-code, it is very easy to try out things like this. We hacked the code to instantaneously reverse for a short distance very quickly at the end of each filament run. After moving to the start of the next run it fast forwards the same distance that it reversed before resuming the normal flow rate.

I designed a simple test shape to allow the results to be compared. It is a 15mm square with four 5mm towers at each corner. I am not using Enrique's latest Skeinforge which I think would minimise the extruder moves in fresh air to just three per layer. This is with a very old version that does the four outlines and then returns to fill each of them in.



Plenty of hairy bits showing the ooze. These can be removed easily, but what is worse is the object will be missing that amount of plastic making it weaker. This can be extreme with a thin structure which is remote from other parts of the same object.

We tried reversing 1 mm at 8 times the extrusion speed to start with. That worked but was obviously more than was needed. We tried 0.25mm which was too little and settled on 0.5mm, although a lot of that is taken up by the motor bracket flexing. I need to make it stronger.

The result was no hair at all!



A very simple fix for a problem that has used a lot of my time in the last two years.

The second experiment was something Erik wanted to try. He has discovered that PLA is soluble in caustic soda, so potentially could be used as soluble support material for ABS. The question was: can we extrude ABS onto PLA and get it to stick well enough to resist warping?

We made a 5mm thick slab of PLA 20mm wide and 40mm long, 90% fill. On top of that we extruded a 30 x 10 x 20mm block of ABS with a 25% fill.



The ABS looks very glossy so I think it may have some PLA in it. Possibly we needed to flush it through for longer. The ABS block is also a bit scrappy. The reason was that the extruder was playing up. It was leaking plastic, hence the burnt bits and the stepper motor was skipping steps leaving a deficit of plastic. This extruder had never done ABS before and still has some teething problems, but it shows that ABS will bond to PLA well enough to stop it curling.

Next we extruded a block of PLA on top of the ABS.



That also bonded well. The messy bit at the join is because HydraRaptor did its normal circuit of the object that it normally does on the first layer but it was in mid air.

To see how well they were bonded we put the PLA base in a vice and attached a small g-clamp to the PLA block on top. The g-clamp was pulled with a strain gauge until the ABS came way from the base at about 8Kg. Interestingly the first layer outline of the ABS was left on the PLA. That was deposited at 215°C whereas the infill of the first layer was at 195°C. These are the values I use for depositing ABS onto a raft, so in an object layer on top of support it would be 240°C giving a stronger bond. See Erik's writeup and video here.

So PLA looks like a good candidate for supporting ABS. They bond well and PLA is very rigid to resist warping. It can be dissolved with drain cleaner but also I expect it would be easy to peel when softened in hot water.

All in all a good day's hacking.

Unsupported!

Kyle Corbitt has designed a RepRapable solar collector described here.


The structure is made up from a triangular lattice like this : -



The risers only overhang 30°C, so they are no problem but the horizontal beam looks like it should need support material. Kyle asked me to try building it without, so I gave it a go. Here is what it looked like after it was made: -



Very hairy but basically sound. This is it after being cleaned up with a scalpel: -



It took about 45 minutes to make and used only 7g of ABS, not including the raft. Head travel while not extruding was about 42% of the filament length but as I move twice as fast as I extrude that was only 21% of the time.

Despite the risers only being about 3.7mm thick it is very strong and rigid. I loaded the centre of the beam to 1.5Kg and it showed no sign of breaking. I also loaded one end to 6Kg with no sign of movement, so the beam could easily support 10Kg and possibly a lot more.

At the top of the base beams the triangular section goes down to zero width. The top four layers are only one filament wide so are very fragile. I don't think they add much to the strength so it would be better to truncate the top of the triangle. Interesting though because it is the first time I tried to make something this thin (0.6mm) in ABS.

Enrique added an option to make the infill go along the length of bridges but it is not actually needed for this shape. The top beam has an inverted triangular section so the first layer of it is just two parallel outlines which span the gap. The rest of the beam builds out from this at 30° so it does not matter which way the infill goes. The first few layers did sag a bit but the top of the beam is flat. An inter layer pause may have reduced the sagging.

So this looks like a good way to make large structures that are light and quick to build, but still strong.