Floating parts with 3D printing

0
E
4

Hello ,

I’m using an SLA printer with high-resolution resin (25-micron layer height), for a miniature satellite component prototype, specifically a multi-chamber fluid management system intended for microgravity environments. 

The design features intricate internal structures, including floating baffles and valve mechanisms, which are essential for controlling fluid flow. I’m facing challenges with support structures that interfere with these delicate internal components. What strategies do you recommend for optimizing support structures for floating internal components without compromising the part’s functionality or surface finish? 
The final product needs to maintain tight tolerances (±0.05 mm) and smooth internal surfaces for optimal fluid dynamics.

Solved by Damon Ali
The most effective approach is selecting the build orientation to reduce the need for support. While that's pretty obvious advice, if you have much design freedom then you might be able to reorient features to reduce the supports further. Can you break your device into individual chambers that are bonded together after printing? That should give you more freedom with build orientation. Where you can try to minimize undercuts in the areas that do need support. When you say 'floating baffles', can they float on lattice structures you design as supports? Dual-purpose features might reduce the number of supports to remove and clean up.
    • E

      Hello ,

      I’m using an SLA printer with high-resolution resin (25-micron layer height), for a miniature satellite component prototype, specifically a multi-chamber fluid management system intended for microgravity environments. 

      The design features intricate internal structures, including floating baffles and valve mechanisms, which are essential for controlling fluid flow. I’m facing challenges with support structures that interfere with these delicate internal components. What strategies do you recommend for optimizing support structures for floating internal components without compromising the part’s functionality or surface finish? 
      The final product needs to maintain tight tolerances (±0.05 mm) and smooth internal surfaces for optimal fluid dynamics.

      0
    • D

      The most effective approach is selecting the build orientation to reduce the need for support. While that’s pretty obvious advice, if you have much design freedom then you might be able to reorient features to reduce the supports further. Can you break your device into individual chambers that are bonded together after printing? That should give you more freedom with build orientation.

      Where you can try to minimize undercuts in the areas that do need support.

      When you say ‘floating baffles’, can they float on lattice structures you design as supports? Dual-purpose features might reduce the number of supports to remove and clean up.

      0
      Reply
      • E
        Damon Ali

        Yeah, I’ve done the best I can in these aspects, but I don’t have enough design freedom to lose all the support. I will look at individual chamber builds to reduce the need for support. Sounds structurally and leakage risky, but maybe rewarding.

        I like the idea of the baffles being designed to integrate supports, that has real potential.

        0
        Reply
      • C
        E. Begum

        Also, thin-walled lattice supports can be left in place with minimized obstruction of fluid flow. Though I would not trust any automated lattice fill tools, model the features fully yourself. Align them with the ideal flow direction you want to impose. Oh, and taper the entry/exit edges to reduce flow influence.

        0
        Reply
      • D
        Chris Jenkins

        Presumably, you can get access in some areas to break off the supports. Can you increase access by integrating holes and bonded plugs to open up the most difficult areas?

        Also, for supports that you are able to break off, you can design them with small, multipoint tapered contact dots or local necking to allow gentle break off and ease cleanup.

        Finally, be strategic about placing supports – keep them away from flow-critical zones to reduce any downside flow influence you’re stuck with.

        Oh, and I suggest you design all your supports into your model, rather than trusting any automated support structures the printer layout software imposes in the build. No software-built supports can ever have the understanding of the fluid mechanics of the real-use context you’ve got!

        0
        Reply
      • E
        Damon Ali

        Thanks, that’s some helpful strategies.

        0
        Reply
Floating parts with 3D printing
Your information:




Suggested Topics

Topic
Replies
Views
Activity
Design adjustments for workholding in CNC machining
Hi! I need advice on optimizing the design of a part that will be CNC machined for workholding. The part is an aluminum bracket with several cutouts, about 150 mm long and 50 mm... read more
T
0
5
Dec 03
Tolerance stack up question
Hi all, I’m new to the world of tolerance stack up and working on a snap-fit assembly with five injection-molded ABS components. In prototypes I’m encountering inconsistent engagement forces, likely due to tolerance accumulation... read more
F
0
24
Nov 26
Maximum safe draw depth for aluminum
Hi everyone, I'm designing an automotive underbody heat shield using 0.8 mm thick aluminum alloy 5052-H32 for progressive die stamping. My main challenge is determining the optimal draw depth for complex geometries without risking... read more
E
L
M
5
71
Nov 26
ISO 2768 fine or medium?
Hi, I'm trying to decide between ISO 2768 Fine and Medium tolerances for CNC machined aluminium parts. What are the practical implications of this choice in terms of achievable precision, manufacturing cost, and lead... read more
L
1
66
Oct 28
Optimizing DMLS support structures for powder removal
Hi everyone, we’re looking to use DMLS to create intricate internal channels in a complex heat exchanger for a miniaturized cooling system in a portable medical device. Our main challenge is optimizing the design... read more
E
1
66
Oct 28