UC Berkeley Researcher Receives Award from Johnson & Johnson for Smart 3D Printer

In 2015, Johnson & Johnson launched the WiSTEM2D (Women in Science, Technology, Math, Manufacturing and Design) program in order to increase the representation of women in the scientific and technical fields, along with the development of female leaders. The unique, multifaceted program is meant to engage women at three important development phases of their lives: youth (ages 5-18), the university graduate level, and in their professional careers.

J&J began offering its WiSTEM2D Scholars Award in 2017, which is meant to fuel development of female leaders in STEM2D, as well as add to the talent pipeline. The award supports the winners’ research, while also inspiring other women to go down similar career paths in their own STEM2D fields. Now in its third year, nominations for the Scholars Award were accepted from female scholars in each of the STEM2D disciplines: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Manufacturing and Design. An independent Advisory Board was set up to choose the winners from over 400 international applicants, and the six winners were recently announced.

“Through this Award and other programs, Johnson & Johnson is working to increase the participation of women in STEM2D fields worldwide. We want to nourish the development of women leaders building a larger pool of highly-trained, female researchers so that they can lead STEM2D breakthroughs in the future,” said Cat Oyler, Vice President, Global Public Health, Tuberculosis, Johnson & Johnson and WiSTEM2D University Sponsor.

In addition to being recognized at an awards ceremony tonight at Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide headquarters in New Jersey, the winners – all assistant or associate academic professors, or the global equivalent of such – will each receive $150,000 in research funding, as well as three years of mentorship from Johnson & Johnson.

Just like Johnson & Johnson, we here at 3DPrint.com have also worked hard to highlight the 3D printing-related accomplishments of young girls and women in STEM and tech fields. That’s why I was thrilled to learn that one of this year’s winners is focused on manufacturing and 3D printing.

Each Scholars Award winner represents one of the STEM2D disciplines:

  •  Katia Vega, PhD, Assistant Professor of Design, UC Davis: while she’s already using the human body as a source of wearable technology, she’ll move on to experimenting with interactive skin and biosensors.
  • Ronke Olabisi, PhD, Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Rutgers University: developing a new hydrogel that can be placed over an injury and constantly deliver insulin and stem cell growth factors for faster skin and tissue growth.
  • Grace X. Gu, PhD, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at University of California, Berkeley: developing a smarter, more efficient 3D printer that can self-correct during a print job.
  • Rebecca Morrison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Computer Science at University of Colorado, Boulder: identifying flexible algorithms that can run calculations on shifting variables more quickly and accurately.
  • Naama Geva-Zatorsky, PhD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institure of Technology: studying the interactions between the immune system and gut microbes.
  • Shengxi Huang, PhD, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering, The Penn State University: developing one device to measure potential disease-causing biomolecules, like cancer cells.

Grace Gu, PhD

Gu, who joined the UC Berkeley faculty in 2018, is looking to address the limitations in manufacturing and materials design with her smart, self-correcting 3D printer.

“I am really excited to build my research group at Berkeley, meet and mentor undergraduate and graduate students, teach foundational mechanical engineering classes, collaborate with exceptional faculty members within and outside the university, and work on 3D-printing projects with students to create a better tomorrow,” Gu said when she began her job at the university.

Gu received her BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan in 2012, picking up an MS from MIT two years later and remaining at MIT to earn her PhD in Mechanical Engineering in 2018. According to UC Berkeley, her research interests include harnessing the power of “tools such as advanced computational analysis, machine learning and topology optimization to revolutionize the field of smart additive manufacturing.”

In her research group at the university, the work is focused on bio-inspired materials.

“The big goal is to develop materials that are inspired by nature, like seashells and bones, and discover new material combinations never before manufactured. These biomaterials possess remarkable mechanical properties that are yet to be replicated by man-made counterparts,” Gu said. “This way we can make implants, for instance, tailored to each individual with the properties necessary for structural integrity of the part—and push the frontiers of additive manufacturing.”

[Image: UC Berkeley]

The work for which she received her WiSTEM2D Scholars Award is centered around building a smarter 3D printer. As Berkeley Engineering put it, she trained “a model for a smart 3D printer that can perform predictive diagnostics to ensure optimal printing quality.”

Gu is taking computer science concepts and applying them to manufacturing in order to create her smart 3D printer. The ultimate goal of this particular research is develop a 3D printer that’s able to correct mistakes by itself while working, while also using a wider range of materials in order to more quickly and reliably produce objects like tougher bike helmets and stronger prosthetics.

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

[Images: Johnson & Johnson unless otherwise noted]

3DPrint.com Interviews 3D Printing Pioneer, Professor Ian Gibson of the University of Twente

I’ve been reading Ian Gibson‘s papers for years now. He has written many insightful articles delving deep into metal, polymers, sintering, concrete, welding, medical applications and the industrialization of 3D printing. This 2016 paper on Design for Additive Manufacturing is one of the most useful things you can find online for 3D printing, while this concrete 3D printing article is a great primer on that part of our industry. He is also one of the authors of the influential book Additive Manufacturing Technologies which has helped many students worldwide to understand 3D printing. Ian has a clear mind and a wealth of 3D printing knowledge and experience. To my surprise, he was now a Professor at the University of Twente. He moved to the Netherlands to be the scientific director of the Fraunhofer Project Centre in complex systems engineering. This arm of the huge German Fraunhofer siblings aims to bring a deep understanding of 3D printing and related developments to the Netherlands. The Center hopes to partner with business in order to make 3D printing for manufacturing a reality. Snagging Gibson is a real coup for both the University and Fraunhofer and it bodes well for their attempts to make manufacturing with 3D printing more commonplace.

First off, why Twente? 

I originally turned down the opportunity. It’s hard to move away from somewhere like Australia, even though it is very isolated from the rest of the world. My mind was changed for two primary reasons. First is the Fraunhofer. The opportunity to be involved with such a well-know and respected organisation is a huge attraction. The second is the culture of the University of Twente. There is a huge amount of respect for education and research that many other universities have turned (in my opinion) away from and into too much of a business. I, therefore, feel very much at home, even with the huge challenges before me, including learning Dutch by the way.

How do you teach the next generation of students about AM?

These days, good educators have changed from knowledgable lecturers to experienced facilitators. Following on from the previous question, I have been an early adopter and heavily involved in project-based learning. This is a refinement of problem-based learning that allows a teaching programme to link fundamental learning requirements to the problem space within projects. In the past this was difficult to do because of the time required to develop the skills in manufacturing as well as the planning and fabrication overheads. AM directly addresses this issue, particularly in the ideation and design iteration phases of product development. The best way to teach students is through immersion. I see my job as not to teach them how to use these machines but to guide them through the design processes with the benefit of my experience and knowledge of what others have done and are doing around the world.Of course, this applies best to entry level AM technologies. For the higher level concepts and technologies, my approach is to harness the enthusiasm from students who express a desire to learn more by hooking them into specific industry and research driven projects.

Will 3D Printing be a revolution in all manufacturing, or only in some areas? 

I am not a fan of the word ‘revolution’. I much prefer to use the word ‘evolution’ and we can see that AM has made its way through time gradually improving to a point where it is suitable for manufacture in more and more instances. In my presentation slides, I often like to make a veiled reference to the Star Trek replicator, which is the ultimate AM in my view, capable of creating anything by assembling at a molecular level. My view is that if we ever get to that stage then it will be “3D printing Jim, but not as we know it”. Having said that, everything is improving in AM, speed, accuracy, material properties, cost. If we see the variation of Moore’s law for AM technology, then we may see AM pervasive in all manufacturing. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath, it will take time and many more developments.

How can we do proper QA for 3D printing?

Making the systems more intelligent would be a start. If we can interrogate the systems during build more effectively then I can see QA being a lot easier. The other consideration is to ensure that simulation tools are able to more accurately determine the final part properties. If we can do that, then we should be able to carry out relatively simple in-build tests to verify the predictions.

“Parts made by Robert Leen, a student and technical assistant in my team at Deakin University. A very talented designer and AM practitioner”

How do we eliminate labor in 3D printing? 

This is the evolutionary process I was referring to earlier. Small changes that make supports easier to remove, finishing methods, more accurate AM machines, etc. They will all move towards reducing labour requirements (amongst other things) that will gradually make them more efficient.

What will the Fraunhofer Project Centre at the University do?

First off, we are not just promoting AM. There are a number of pillars of activity in the FPC, many of which are related to AM as a tool that must therefore be compared against other tools. Our purpose at FPC is to assist manufacturing industry in elevating their capacity. When there are so many options available to you, it is helpful to have an entitiy like the FPC to help you navigate this labyrinth. We also see ourselves as a conduit to much of the excellent research that is being carried out at the University of Twente. Basically I would say that if you’re a company looking to invest in new technology that in some way will change your products and/or processes, consider coming to see us as a potential partner.

Who would you like to partner with? 

We are looking to work with forward-thinking manufacturing companies, independent of size or background. Some of that may involve linking some of the larger companies to SMEs. Our objective is to create an environment for innovation and collaboration where we can all help and learn from each other.

What is holding AM back in medical?

The easy answer to this is related to legislation and certification. AM is most well-suited to customised or patient-specific applications. This means that many AM products are unique. Medical approvals for devices are primarily based on population studies, ensuring that a generic design can work for many people. AM turns this the opposite way round where an individual design is for one person. How can the current system therefore ensure every example is going to succeed? I understand the problem but very unsure on how to arrive at a solution. I think it should be that processes are validated, rather than products, but that is easier to say than to do.

Do you believe in more patient-specific devices? 

Yes I do. In many circumstances. This is not just about AM, but about personalised medicine, which is part of the Healthcare 5.0 initiative. A health tracking watch or similar device, which can learn your habits and alert to potential or even actual health problems, is a patient-specific device in that the software is customising itself to the individual user. AM just helps with the ergonomics and aesthetics. We are already a long way down this road but still with a long way to go. I think one area where development is likely to take off is the merging of mechanical AM with electrical and electronics to create intelligent, custom devices. Patient-specific devices will definitely benefit from this.

What are steps that need to occur to get multimaterial metals further?

This is a really tough thing to do because the metallurgy (most specifically intermetallics) very often gets in the way. We are still in fact struggling to understand some of the fundamentals like fracture behavior when you move from material A to material B. There are a few successes that come from research into cladding, but these are quite simple problems compared with what we would like to do.

Turbine housing build by Aeronamic with the help of Fraunhofer Project Centre

What advice would you give to a company wanting to industrialize 3D printing? 

I would advise them to come and see the FPC of course. Having a partner who can help guide you through the process is very important. However, the first thing is to get your hands dirty by investing in some low-cost AM equipment. This will kick-start the creative processes. I once was approached by a company who was looking to make some plastic covers for equipment that they were using on their production line. The supplier charged them 50 Euros for each new part and they, correctly, thought it would be cheaper and easier to make them themselves. They asked me to make these covers for them, which I did but I also suggested they invest in an entry-level printer, which they did. Now they are saving thousands of Euros by printing spare parts for their line with a machine that cost 400 Euros and is operated by their current maintenance crew.

Who should read your book?

Well according to the publisher Springer, over 1 million people already have, which is nice to know. We wrote the book at the time because we all thought there was nothing out there for students looking to understand AM. I think we were right and it has become part of the exciting growth that we are seeing in the industry. It was really aimed at bachelor and masters students working either on related courses or projects but we also see that people in industry are reading it too.

What does the 3D printing industry need to improve? 

I think that the industry has moved so fast that there is probably something missing in the infrastructure. Organisations, associations, regulatory bodies, etc. are struggling to keep up. I saw a presentation recently titled “the exciting and boring future for AM” or something similar. I guess we are in a phase where we need to be a bit boring as a further response to your earlier question about quality. On a more specific note, most 3D printers are not really designed for true industrial use. They are still primarily constructed as lab equipment. We need to get over that.

There are more post-processing vendors providing equipment but on the whole, the process seems rather artisanal? 

Agreed, but you have to see how far we have gone since pre-rapid prototyping. It’s kind of related to the product I think. Look at the Figureprints setup. There’s a video of their process which is very nicely done that requires manual input at key stages because all the models they work with are somewhat unique. However, it is still quite automoated. Contrast that with how GE probably deal with the fuel nozzles on their Leap engine. Although I’ve not seen it, I can well imagine there is very little manual intervention on the design, because all the parts are essentially identical. It’s just best to use AM to achieve their performance objectives.

There is a lot of hype on concrete printing but most companies seem to engage in overclaim. What are the challenges in printing houses? 

The challenge is really about providing something that cannot be done in an alternative manner. Concrete construction is all about providing structural support in a quick, low-cost manner. There are all sorts of methods for creating pre-cast and modular concrete products. How does concrete printing match up to that? The answer is, not very well. To me, there are lots of potential ways in which AM can assist the construction industry, but it has to be looked at from first principles and in a holistic manner. For example, I think there is a lot that can be done with AM in the field of modular construction, but a lot of it isn’t concrete. If it is concrete then let it be in partial construction for the complex structures like joints, facades, decorative features, etc, which then match up with the blockwork made using standard methods.