5 Benefits of Using 3D Printing in Facade Architecture and Construction

A building’s facade
is a challenging, multi-functional aspect of the structure that carries a lot
of responsibility and expectations. It acts as a barrier and protects the
inside from the elements, determines how much light enters the space and also
provides the overall aesthetic to the building. Find out how architects are
using 3D printing to streamline architectural design and construction
processes, freeing up more time and costs to continue innovating.

“Deep
Facade” from ETH Zurich Uses 3D Printing to Produce Complex Geometric Shapes

Deep Facade is a 6×4 meter aluminium structure composed of 26 sections of looping metal cast in a 3D printed open sand mold. It was created by students from the Digital Fabrication course at ETH Zurich in 2018 and evokes the folds of the cerebral cortex. This process makes use of the computational design method called topology optimization, where lightweight material can be used to create highly stable and efficient structures. They used binder jetting technology to fabricate the sand molds which allowed them substantial geometric freedom and sped up the fabrication process due to fast printing time, eliminating patternmaking and reducing material waste. The complexity of the geometric shapes of Deep Facade would not have been possible without the use of digital design and 3D printing. Each mold took under 12 hours to print and once printing began the facade itself was formed in less than half a week. The students’ work on Deep Facade demonstrated that the production of parts with 3D printed sand molds was faster and cheaper than traditional mold making methods, and also showed how efficiently one of a kind complex geometric designs could be produced.

FIT
Additive Manufacturing Group’s “Facade 3000” Demonstrates the Potential for
Mass Individualization with 3D Printing

In Lupburg Germany, FIT created a 3D printed aluminium facade for its boarding house made up of panels each with its own complex pattern of cavities to showcase how to use 3D printing in construction to favor economical individualization. The panels each have a unique arrangement of cavity shapes, each created using aluminium inserts in the molds. They were able to produce 20 different panels simultaneously in rotation. This method of producing unique panel pieces demonstrates that 3D printing is a key resource when it comes to the future of cost-effective mass-individualization and customization in construction.

1 South
First Building by COOKFOX Architects Finds Higher Productivity and Durability
with 3D Printed Molds

The new building at the site of the former Domino Sugar Factory in Brooklyn, NY. consists of two interlocking structures with facades of all-white concrete precast from 3D printed molds. The crystalline facades were designed to emulate sugar crystals and are self-shading with each piece shaped according to its solar orientation. The variations in the panels meant that over 100 different molds were needed, and creating each one took between 14-16 hours instead of taking 40-50 hours each if the molds were made traditionally. The efficiency of the molding process freed up substantial time and the 3D printed molds proved to be more durable than traditional wood and fiberglass molds (which can be used up to 10 times), as they were able to be reused 150-200 times.

Rainier
Square Tower in Seattle by 3Diligent Corp x Walters & Wolf Use 3D Printed
Parts for Better Accuracy and Reliability

In order to create an upward slope from the 4th to the 40th floor in the 59-story Rainier Square Tower in Seattle, Walters & Wolf and digital manufacturing company 3Diligent Corp printed aluminium nodes and wall curtains. 140 3D printed v-shaped nodes and square cut pieces of curtain wall were custom fabricated to geometrically accommodate a different angle for each section of the building. 3Diligent gave Walters & Wolf the option between investment casting and 3d printing and Walters & Wolf decided to use the 3D printed nodes because of their level of precision and structural integrity. Each node was created with varying dimensions up to a cubic foot, another testament to the efficiency and flexibility of 3d printing.

The
“Fluid Morphology” Project in Munich Make Use of Fast Prototyping to Develop
Functionally Integrated Facades

At the Technical University in Munich, Moritz Mungenast and Studio 3F began a project to create a 3D printed facade envelope that integrates ventilation, insulation and shading to become the new facade of the Deutsches Museum in 2020. The facade design is flowing and translucent, resembling Shapeways’ translucent material Accura 60. Studio 3F built a 1.6×2.8 meter section to test for a year to improve the design before making another polycarbonate prototype. The team was able to print 1:1 scale models and prototypes along the way with ease, meaning they were able to fully comprehend the viability of their design, determine production costs, communicate their ideas to their clients and continue developing what they hope to be a widely used facade technology that combines form and function.

In addition to these innovative projects, more and more architecture firms are utilizing 3D printing to achieve a higher level of freedom in design and as a way of making processes more time and cost efficient. 3D printed molds hold up better than traditional wood casts and have a higher range of possibility when it comes to complex geometric shapes. Because of the range of materials available, 3D printing also assures a level of structural reliability for the printing of end-use parts.

Shapeways can print with a variety of materials, including stainless steel, translucent and high strength plastics, and can help you get started with producing custom molds and parts.

The post 5 Benefits of Using 3D Printing in Facade Architecture and Construction appeared first on Shapeways Blog.

Live Entrepreneurship & 3D Value Networks: Sustainability in Food packaging

Sustainability is on everybody’s lips and single use plastics does not have a good reputation. When the public perception is that plastic is all bad, it is hard to remind people what good plastic has done for the food industry. Plastic has enabled our entire grocery store system to keep products on the shelf for a long time, which reduces costs and enables the export of produce to faraway places. Whilst plastic can deform itself to protect all kinds of products from chicken wings to tomatoes, 70% of it still ends up in landfill. It is a big task technically, logistically, politically, and economically to create food storage, delivery, and transport systems, which can please everybody from the Greenpeace activist to the corporate CEO.

Follow our video series in collaboration with 3dprint.com in order to understand what part 3D printing plays in the creation of new value network driven concepts and companies in the food industry. Tune in to hear from Gary Robinson from Synaptic Packaging how to tackle sustainability challenges in food packaging.

The post Live Entrepreneurship & 3D Value Networks: Sustainability in Food packaging appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printing & the Circular Economy Part 3: Injection Molding

Injection Molding Diagram

As referred to in our previous article, injection molding refers to when plastic pellets are pressed into a mold cavity and under pressure and heat become a certain shape. Injection molding produces low scrap rates relative to other traditional manufacturing processes like CNC machining which cut away substantial percentages of an original plastic block or sheet. This however can be a negative relative to additive manufacturing processes like 3D printing that have even lower scrap rates. Overall this is a method that does not produce a lot of scrap through initial production. The downsides that are associated with injection molding include high costs in terms of startup, molding, and tooling. We will compare this manufacturing technique in terms of sustainability vs additive manufacturing.

Transportation waste is not as large of a concern when it comes to injection molding. It is important to have one’s material ready before they are to place it into an injection molding apparatus. The layout of one’s factory or fabrication environment is more critical towards this type of waste. Similar thoughts can be arrived at in terms of additive manufacturing. One typically must feed an additive manufacturing device with material, and transportation of materials is reliant upon the layout of one’s factory or fabrication environment.

Mold Cavitation

Inventory waste is something to keep in mind for this type of manufacturing. There is a high production rate that occurs with an injection molding system. This rate is reliant on two factors:

  1. Cycle time
  2. Mold Cavitation

Cycle time refers to how long it takes to complete a function, job, or task from start to finish. Cycle time is used in differentiating total duration of a process from its run time. Mold cavitation refers to the creation of an empty space that forms the basis of our molding process. So depending on the size of a mold, the cycle time shall vary. One can create a large amount of product fairly quickly with an injection mold system. This can lead to extra inventory than needed if organizations are freely creating objects for a 3rd party. This could be a case where a supplier is just making bulk production for when a 3rd party company needs more product at a later date. Additive manufacturing production rate is based on cycle time and the size of the object to be printed. This causes less inventory waste as there is a lot of time associated with printing a lot of materials at the moment.

Cycle Time

Waiting is a large differentiator in terms of injection molding vs additive manufacturing. 3D Printing technology has vastly increased over the years in terms of efficiency and speed. However, processes such as injection molding, have well established production rates that have been sharpened through decades of use.

Over-processing is not as much of a concern for both of these methods of manufacturing. Injection molding and 3D printing are both great at building quick prototypes of designs. I would argue that the biggest pain point is under processing. Post processing is a big issue when it comes to 3D printers. An injection molded part does have issues in terms of post processing, but not as glaring as most 3D Printing systems at the moment. This then leads to more time and energy spent on production.

Plastic and the Circular Economy

Finally, we will discuss the ability to recycle and reuse products that have been created through injection molding. Re-melting & melt filtration are required for the recycling of injection molded parts. Proper re-melting of the recycled material occurs under very low shear rates in the extruder and at the lower end of the melting temperature. Shear rate refers to the rate at which a progressive shearing deformation is applied to some material. The shearing deformation refers to when there is a deformation of a material substance in which parallel internal surfaces slide past one another. The objective is to gently re-melt the original material, which ensures maintenance of the material properties. A proper melt filtration process will remove any contaminants in the melt like cellulose, metal or wood pieces. Filtration refers to any of various mechanical, physical or biological operations that separates solids from fluids (liquids or gases) by adding a medium through which only the fluid can pass.  State of the art melt filtration is fully automated and does not require manual operation steps. The melt is filtered continuously at low pressure and can remove particles as small as 70 microns in diameter.  Similar processes can be applied to 3D printing materials as well.

Overproduction is a key point in terms of sustainability within both of these processes. It is important to consider the high startup costs associated with injection molding. It typically requires a lot of money to build objects through injection molding because it is a process that creates objects in large quantities. This can lead to having to hold various products within an inventory for an extended period of time. This is waste as these products may have been created without a definite need for them in the present. 3D Printing takes more time to create products, but they can be done with an intent to make a specific amount for an order instead of printing extra for use later.

Throughout this series, it is important to recognize that 3D Printing is a great solution. We still have to be critical of it as a viable option in traditional manufacturing settings. We must have a critical eye in terms of waste reduction. This also must include waste reduction in terms of faulty processes. This will allow us to have an interesting examination of the circular economy.

New Guide: Paper Craft Crystal Gems Tutorial #cosplay #stevenuniverse

New tutorial from Erin St. Blaine: create amazing cosplay glowing crystal gems!  From the guide:

Crystal Gems will always save the day!

Create a stunning paper craft crystal from laminated cellophane wrap. Add NeoPixels and watch it sparkle!

We’ve included two different build sizes in this tutorial — one crystal large enough to house a Circuit Playground Express, and one with a single NeoPixel illuminating the crystal. This project can be run from a battery for cosplay applications (the crystal on Gandalf’s staff perhaps?) or plugged in to the wall via USB for a more permanent installation.

We’ve also included a Steven Universe Warp-Pad 3D printable base, so your Crystal Gems can be displayed in style. The possibilities are endless!

We love these gems. They’re easy to make with a few easily found tools. The main ingredient is cellophane gift wrap that’s been run through a laminating machine, which creates a perfect material for paper crafting — stiff enough to hold up but easy to cut with scissors or a utility knife. You can also get fancy and use a vinyl cutting machine to create perfect gems in multiple sizes. 3d print a base, or use the gem in a hanging lamp, or place it on top of your staff for a Gandalf-style cosplay. Such a cool project!

Full tutorial: https://learn.adafruit.com/paper-craft-crystal-gem-lantern

ORNL and UMaine Initiative Receives Funding to Create New Bio-Based 3D Printing Materials

UMaine Advanced Structures and Composites Center students and staff lift a boat roof from a mold 3D printed with a new biomaterial, nanocellulose-reinforced PLA, developed at the University of Maine. L-R: Michael Hunter, Camerin Seigars, Zane Dustin, Alex Cole, Scott Tomlinson, Richard Fredericks, and Habib Dagher. [Image: UMaine]

The researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee have spent a lot of time working with unique 3D printing materials, such as polyesterlignin, and nanocellulose, which is a bio-derived nanomaterial. Now, a new research collaboration between ORNL and the University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center aims to increase efforts to use wood products as 3D printing materials. Together, the team will work with the forest products industry to create new bio-based 3D printing materials that can be used to make products like building components, boats and boat hull molds, wind blades, and shelters.

The large-scale initiative was announced this week in Washington, DC. Leaders from the university and ORNL, as well as the DoE‘s assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy Daniel Simmons, the founding executive director of the Advanced Structures and Composites Center Habib Dagher, and US Sens. Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, and Angus King were all on hand for the announcement, which also stated that UMaine and ORNL had received $20 million in federal funding for the program from the DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office.

[Image: UMaine]

“While Oak Ridge is a global leader in additive manufacturing, the University of Maine is an expert in bio-based composites. By working together, they will strengthen environmentally responsible advanced manufacturing in America as well as helping the forest industry in the state of Maine,” Senator Collins said.

Sens. Collins and King requested federal help to save the declining forest products industry in Maine back in 2016, after several paper mills in the state closed their doors. This led to the founding of the Economic Development Assessment Team (EDAT) to work across agencies in order to come up with economic development strategies for the rural communities in Maine that were suffering from the mill closures. This team resulted in the ongoing partnership between UMaine and ORNL.

“Using Maine forest products for 3D printing is a great way to create new jobs in Maine and a good reminder that national laboratories are our secret weapons in helping the United States stay competitive in the rapidly changing world economy. The partnership between the University of Maine and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a model for how science and technology can help Americans prosper in the new economy,” said Senator Alexander.

A 3D printed representation of the state of Maine presented by Habib Dagher, executive director of UMaine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center. The material was a wood-based product developed at UMaine. [Image: Contributed by the office of Sen. Susan Collins]

This October, ORNL’s BAAM 3D printer will be installed at UMaine, which is actually considered a world leader in cellulose nano fiber (CNF) technology. UMaine students can also visit ORNL’s Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF), while staff from the laboratory can in turn learn about cellulose fiber and composites at UMaine’s composites center.

One of the printer’s first tasks will be to fabricate a boat mold out of a wood-based plastic, though the team hopes to apply the technology to many large-scale manufacturing applications.

Habib Dagher, Executive Director of the Advanced Structures & Composites Center holds up 3D printed representations of Maine and Tennessee signifying new manufacturing programs between UMaine and ORNL that will use wood-based products in 3D printing. Sen. Angus King, I- Maine, and Sen. Susan Collins, R- Maine, watch Dagher’s presentation after announcing $20 million in federal funding for the collaboration. [Image: Contributed by the office of Sen. Susan Collins]

Dagher explained, “The material is nanocellulose, basically a tree ground up to its nano structure. These materials have properties similar to metals. We are taking those and putting them in bioplastics so we can make very strong plastics that we can make almost anything with.”

The team will then add the nanocellulose to PLA.

“The University of Maine is doing cutting-edge research related to bio-feedstocks and the application of advanced manufacturing in regional industries,” said Thomas Zacharia, the director of ORNL. “We are thrilled at this opportunity to expand our research base while providing UMaine with access to the leading national capabilities we have developed at ORNL’s Manufacturing Demonstration Facility.”

The overall goal for the initiative is to find new uses for wood-based products in an effort to reinvigorate Maine’s forest products industry, while also helping to make regional manufacturing stronger by connecting university–industry clusters with the MDF. The federal funding will be divided equally between both facilities.

“We will integrate 20 years of research in bio-based composites at UMaine and 3D printing at ORNL. It is an opportunity engine for our students, faculty, staff and manufacturing industry who will work side by side with researchers at our nation’s foremost research laboratory. Together, we will break down wood to its nanocellulose structure, combine it with bioplastics, and print with it at hundreds of pounds an hour,” said Dagher. “The research we will be conducting with ORNL will spur next-generation manufacturing technologies using recyclable, bio-based, cost-effective materials that will bolster our region’s economy.”

Scientists from UMaine and ORNL will be conducting research in multiple areas, such as multiscale modeling, CNF production, drying, functionalization, and compounding with thermoplastics, and sustainability life-cycle analysis.

CNF could actually rival the properties of steel, and by successfully adding it into plastics, the researchers could create a renewable feedstock for strong, recyclable, bio-derived material systems that might even be 3D printed at deposition rates of hundreds of pounds an hour. Additionally, using a material that’s 50% wood could help open new markets for the forest products industry.

UMaine will get world’s largest 3D printer and use wood-based plastic to make boat molds

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

Global Environment Concerns Support R&D for Plastic Recycling in 3D Printing

A recent series of major developments and events has created a new impetus for 3D printing plastic recycling. 3D printing of recycled plastics has multiple benefits, including lower costs and control over the amount of materials that can be used by 3D printers. Currently, 3D printing filament is produced by melting down virgin plastic pellets and extruding the melted plastic through a circular die which is then rolled up into spools. Printing with pellets or recycled materials is more cost effective and energy efficient than printing with new plastic filaments. In addition, direct printing of plastic pellets eliminates the need for further processing and therefore makes them less expensive.

Plastic has always been one of the leading 3D printer material categories.  Now there is an expanding global concern about the amount of plastic product waste and in particular its negative impact on oceans and waterways. Improved pellet 3D printing recycling technology can play an important part in helping solve this environmental problem. 3D printing product developers, engineers, designers and environmentalists working on pellet recycling projects have the opportunity to earn US R&D tax credits.

The Research & Development Tax Credit

Enacted in 1981, the now permanent Federal Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit allows a credit that typically ranges from 4%-7% of eligible spending for new and improved products and processes. Qualified research must meet the following four criteria:

  • Must be technological in nature
  • Must be a component of the taxpayer’s business
  • Must represent R&D in the experimental sense and generally includes all such costs related to the development or improvement of a product or process
  • Must eliminate uncertainty through a process of experimentation that considers one or more alternatives

Eligible costs include US employee wages, cost of supplies consumed in the R&D process, cost of pre-production testing, US contract research expenses, and certain costs associated with developing a patent.

On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed the PATH Act, making the R&D Tax Credit permanent. Beginning in 2016, the R&D credit can be used to offset Alternative Minimum tax for companies with revenue below $50 million and for the first time, pre-profitable and pre-revenue startup businesses can obtain up to $250,000 per year in payroll taxes and cash rebates.

The Growing Scale of the Problem

The March 2018 issue of the Economist contained three articles devoted to the plastic waste environmental issues. Since the 1950s, humans have created 8.3 billion tons of plastic. According to the Economist since the 1950s, 7 to 9% has been recycled. In 2015, it is estimated that humans have generated 8.3 billion tons of plastic, 6.3 billion tons of which has already become waste. If the trends continue, then 12 billion tons of plastic waste will be in landfills.

Global production of plastics has increased from 2 million metric tons in the 1950s to over 400 million metric tons in 2015, most of which are man-made materials. Plus, half of all the plastics that are used become waste after four years. The plastic production in the US doesn’t show signs of slowing.

A team of researchers led a study in 2015 that calculated the amount of plastic waste that drains into the oceans. The results showed that 8 million metric tons of plastic lay in the oceans in 2010. Indonesia is the world’s second biggest plastics polluter. They have pledged to decrease plastic waste in the ocean by 75% by 2025, however some observers doubt that legal rules will be able to enforce and achieve such goals. Last year the government called for a “garbage emergency” where cleaners and trucks were deployed to collect rubbish off the shoreline.

The repercussion of plastic fragments in marine waters is alarming. For the most part, this pollution is not in the form of large, visible containers, but rather small particles. Two main types of small particle plastic pollutants are common in the environment: microfibers and microbeads. Most plastic is not a biodegradable material and when it is exposed to the sun’s UV radiation, it will break down into microfibers. Aside from degradation, these microfibers are produced at industrial quantities as polyester fabrics that are used to create durable and stretchy fabrics. Microfibers enter the water stream when polyester fabrics are washed, and only a fraction is caught by waste treatment facilities. It is estimated that a washing machine could release more than 700,000 microfibers into the environment. Microbeads are less than 5 millimeters long and are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products. Others come from plastic pieces that are degraded over time. In recent years, countries have taken initiatives to ban the sale of products containing microbeads, but this is only a fraction of the plastic waste entering the water stream.

Here are some recent developments involving plastic waste:

  1. Coca-Cola’s announcement that they are committed to 100% recycling by the year 2030
  2. China’s new law prohibiting the importation of plastic waste
  3. Major NGO efforts to address the problem including the MacArthur Foundation
  4. Study finds plastic water bottles contain micro plastics
  5. Improvements in 3D printer recycling technology

The Coca-Cola Announcement

In its January 19th “World Without Waste” announcement, Coca-Cola pledged to recycle 100% of packaging by 2030. Coca-Cola has been a long-time thought leader on environmental issues and previously led efforts for major reductions in water consumption. The company is embracing a multi-faceted approach including material reduction, reuse and recycling.  Coca-Cola produces an estimated 110 billion plastic bottles a year, of which the majority around the world ends up in landfills, beaches, and in the ocean.

The Coca-Cola Company announced in January of this year that by 2030, for every bottle they sell they will recycle the equivalent number of bottles. If the plastic waste problem is not solved, Coca-Cola’s CEO said that if Coke can manage to recycle the equivalent of 100% of its packaging, then “there’s no such thing as a single-use bottle.” If plastic is not solved, then the oceans and waterways will suffer. If Coca-Cola is successful in this endeavor, presumably beverage companies and packaged goods companies will follow their lead.

China: No More Western Garbage

As of January 1, 2018, China has banned the importation of 24 categories of waste including plastic waste. China’s government is enacting a plastic waste import ban which is in an attempt to cut down millions of tons of plastic and other recyclables each year. China doesn’t want to be the “world’s garbage dump” as they recycle about half of the globe’s plastics and paper products. Therefore, they are figuring out ways to reduce the waste.

The ban includes plastics, slag from steel making, unsorted scrap paper and discarded textiles. According to China’s WTO, the list has been adjusted to protect both the environment and people’s health. China has been importing loads of waste used as raw materials in industrial production. Last year, China imported 7.3 million tons of plastic waste, nearly half of all world plastic imports. The volume of some waste categories are so great that the new import ban is causing a reverse supply chain waste back up. The best way for the Western waste producers to tackle the problem is to reduce the amount of underlying waste created at the source.  Domestically, one compelling use case is to convert plastic waste to 3D printer pellets for the creation of new products.

According to a recent study, China is the country that mismanages the most amount of plastic waste.

NGO Efforts to Address Plastic Waste

In 2016, 90 NGOs joined together to fight plastic waste. It is important for the NGOs fighting plastic waste to learn more about 3D pellet printing technological developments. Three of the major NGOs with plastic waste initiatives are described below:

Ellen MacArthur Foundation

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation provides a vision for the global economy. The MacArthur Foundation is using the principles of the circular economy to bring together the stakeholders to rethink and redesign the future of plastics by starting with packaging. The circular environment will prevent waste and make sure that products will be recycled. Most plastic packaging is used once, which is 95% of the value of plastic packaging material and worth between $80-120 billion per annum. Given projected growth in consumption, by 2050, the oceans are expected to contain more plastic than fish and the entire plastics industry will consume 20% of total oil production and about 15% of the annual carbon budget.

UN

The UN is looking to solve the micro plastic dilemma and reduce marine litter. The UN has drafted goals to decrease plastic waste and marine plastic pollution by 2025. The draft outlines these three key points:

  1. The importance of long-term elimination of litter in oceans and of avoiding detriment to marine ecosystems
  2. Urge other organizations to get involved and join the movement against marine pollution
  3. Encourage all Member States to prioritize policies to avoid marine litter and microplastics from entering into the marine environment

The life in the seas is a “planetary risk” and the UN hopes to send a powerful message that changes the way the world consumes, produces, and tackles pollution. For instance, in Kenya, there is a turtle hospital which treats animals that have ingested plastic waste. In Tanzania, there is plastic waste that litters the coast. Plastic rings and rims of plastic bottle caps have bite marks on them demonstrating that fish have nibbled on them thinking it was potential food. Local townspeople try to clean the filth up, however it is difficult to keep the beaches clean with the amount of waste that washes up on the shore. Some environmentalists feel it is too large a problem to be able to solve by 2025.

Greenpeace

Greenpeace is an NGO with offices around the world including the US, Amsterdam and Scotland. Greenpeace has been observing the coastlines of Scotland to find plastic waste in the environment. Plastic is harmful for marine life including fish, seabirds, and other animals. Plastic has been found at shark feeding grounds, and in Scotland, it is now being discovered in the beaks of seabirds. The NGO is working with the country’s environment secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, to introduce a deposit return scheme for drink containers in Scotland.

Micro plastics

A study conducted by scientists at the State University of New York (SUNY) in Fredonia found that 93% of 259 water bottles contain micro plastic. Bottles of Aqua, Aquafina, Bisteri, Dasani, Epura, Evian, Nestle Pure Life, San Pellegrino and Wahaha water from India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico and the US were sampled, and the researchers identified 325 particles of micro plastic per liter of water. In one study, it was discovered that in one bottle of Nestle Pure Life, the concentrations reached about 10,000 plastic pieces per liter of water. Out of the 259 bottles that were tested, only 17 were plastic free. This is a growing concern among health specialists and more analyses need to be done to prove how detrimental this is for one’s health. A truckload of plastic enters the ocean every minute. Plastics are building up in marine animals which means that humans are also exposed. The micro plastics that are found in the oceans and the toxic chemicals in plastics are creating threats to the environment and its inhabitants. It is essential for individuals to be vigilant about recycling and start using 3D printers which recycle plastic waste.

3D Printer Recycling Plastic Technology

3D printing with pellets provides an alternative way to develop objects instead of reverting to plastic filaments. Due to the lower cost, individuals are able to print with higher-quality materials for the same price as a filament counterpart. However, small, low-cost machines are available that allow for local production of 3D printing filament from pellets or recycling at a reasonable cost.

Engineering students at the University of British Columbia in Canada created the Protocycler which takes plastic water bottles and recycles them back to usable form. In addition, the Filabot is another filament extruder that has been on the market since 2013. These extruders grind the pieces, melt them down, and extrude the plastic filament on a spool. This provides an opportunity for individuals to easily recycle their plastic waste. Instead of throwing out your food container, you can put your plastic waste in the extruder and then make your own plastic spool that you can later print with again. Printing from recycled materials with Protocycler or the Filabot provide an estimated 90% cost savings on every spool that is printed.

The fully automatic operation, combined with real-time diameter feedback, means that anyone can get perfect filament every time they use the device. Small-scale extrusion also disposes of any extra waste that is usually the byproduct from printing. The extruder “closes the loop”, by taking the failed prints and allowing them to be used again to 3D print objects.

Protoprint is a company in India that uses 3D printing as a way to rid their waste and separate recyclables. There are filament sites at garbage dumps and they have developed and trained a network of waste pickers to sort and process the plastic. Once the waste is sorted, they are brought to the shed where they pass through a sorting and grinding machine which converts the plastic into pellets or flakes. The flakes are then passed through the refill-bot which uses a mechanism to create the recycled filament, which is spun on a spool to be used for later use. Protoprint has discovered that this low-cost technology is able to produce a plastic filament which then can be used in 3D printing.

Conclusion

The global community is focusing on problems related to plastic waste both on land and in our oceans. Plastics are the most common type of trash found in the sea. This is a perfect time for filament producers and product designers to offer their recycling solutions. The large volumes of this excess material make it particularly important to develop large footprint plastic products such as car parts, carpets, fencing, and infrastructure products using recycled waste. R&D Tax Credits are available for product designers and engineers who engage in this important effort.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.


Charles Goulding & Steve Kelly of R&D Tax Savers discuss plastic recycling.