Tag: 3D printing

Posted on

How 3D Printing is Influencing the Medicine Industry

3D printing technology has evolved throughout the years, and it has drastically reshaped many industries. In this article, the focus would be put on its impact on the medical industry. Specifically, this article would touch on the features, current application, and controversial areas of the 3D printing technology.

3D printing is different from traditional technology in several different ways. This article would focus on the three main benefits 3D printing bring to the medical field: customization, low-cost and flexibility.

Customization

The first feature of 3D printing is customization. Depending on the individual needs, the model or the product can be tailored to individual users. At the same time, the model or the product can easily scale up depending on the volume demand.

3D printing is becoming more and more widely used in the hospital setting. One application of 3D printing in the hospitals is the rehearsal of surgery. With 3D printing technology, the patients’ specific conditions can be printed out and examined before the actual conduction of the surgery. With rehearsal on the patients’ specific models, the success rate of actual surgeries is much larger. In addition, because the doctors can practice and train on the specific model, it takes less time to carry out the operation. As a result, the patients are exposed to the environment for a lesser time. This further reduced morbidity and mortality rate.

Low-Cost

The second feature of 3D printing is low-cost. 3D printing is generally cheaper than the traditional method. In a conventional way, the mold is designed for larger production, and it requires a larger volume to cover the capital investment. As a result, many products are more expensive to the end customers. This makes some products unaffordable to end customers with smaller disposable income. On the other hand, because 3D printing can be designed for each individual, the cost for each type is drastically cheaper. It doesn’t require a building a specific model to carry out a new type. The lower initial investment enables 3D printing to be low-cost even for small volume production.

One example of how low cost benefits the customers is the application in prosthetics. Traditionally, it is costly for customers to get customized prosthetics because of the sunk expenses related to building the model. With 3D printing, the cost of manufacturing prosthetics is much lower which makes prosthetics more affordable to end patients.

Flexibility of Location

The third feature of 3D printing is its flexibility of location. Traditionally, the manufacturing of the products takes place at the manufacturer. Then, depending on the channels, the products would go through several intermediates before it comes to the end customers. With 3D printing, it is possible that the features of the product are transmitted digitally. Changes can be made throughout the supply chain. In the medical context, the end hospital or drug stores can print out the pills at the very last minute depending on the patients need. The fact that it can be carried out at the last step enables more customization opportunity. Since nothing physical has been produced in the middle steps, the costs of switching are much lower compared with the traditional method. The distribution and storing cost can be reduced to a minimal extent. This makes 3D printing more affordable for patients.

One example of how the flexibility of location benefits the customers is pills. The pills can be printed out at drug stores. This makes it very convenient for customers to get the drug they need. In addition, combined with the customization feature of 3D printing, the pills can be customized to each individual so that the individual doesn’t need to take as many pills as they do with the traditional method. The shape of the tablets can also be altered to fit individual consumers better.

Controversies

Although there are many benefits and current application of 3D printing technology, the technology still has some controversial areas. Until those areas are fixed, it would be hard to apply 3D printing technology widely.

Unrealized expectation

The first controversial issue with 3D printing is the unrealized expectation associated with the technology. The current accomplishment of using the 3D printing has been exaggerated by the media, the governments or even researchers. As a result, the general public doesn’t have a clear image of what the technology can achieve and what the technology can’t achieve in the current stage. For instance, the application in bioprinting and organ structure is at the preliminary stage. However, the outcome of the current usage is exaggerated. The consumers are not aware that the technology is not mature enough to be carried out to all cases, and it will require more time and money until the wide application become realized.

Regulation

A second big issue with 3D printing is regulation. While the production becomes simplified with 3D printing, the potential impact of counterfeit products become problematic. This is especially true in the medical field. For instance, if customers buy fake pills, their health conditions would be worse. The government needs to set rules associated with the technology to ensure it is controlled and monitored. The same principle applies to copyright concern. The law needs to define to what extent it is legal to copy a 3D printing model.

Conclusion

The 3D printing technology has benefits in customization, low-cost and flexibility of location. With those features, 3D printing has been making a significant impact in the medicine field. However, certain controversial areas remain unsolved, and it is critical to solve those concerns before the broad application of 3D printing.

Reference

Cave, Holly. “3D-printed pills will provide the solution to one of medicine’s biggest issues” Quartz, 22 Feb. 2019, qz.com/1554685/3d-printing-could-give-you-a-better-pill-to-swallow/
Lee, Ventola. “Medical Applications For 3d Printing: Current and Projected Uses.” U.S. National Library of Medicine, Oct 2014, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189697/
Giges, Nancy. “Top 5 Ways 3d Printing Is Changing the Medical Field.” ASME, May 2017, www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/manufacturing-design/top-5-ways-3d-printing-changing-medical-field
Trounson, Andrew. “Here’s how 3D printing could change the future of medicine.” World Economic Forum, 4 Sep. 2017, www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/heres-how-3d-printing-could-change-the-future-of-medicine

Posted on

Introduction to 3D Printing Technology in Food Manufacturing and its Impact

3D Printing Technology

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is a technological process that can bring a digital file into a three-dimensional solid object through adding layers by layers of material until the object is formed (“What is 3D Printing?”). 3D printing consists of a series of additive manufacturing technologies, including “selective laser sintering (SLS), fused deposition modeling (FDM), laser-assisted bioprinting, micro-extrusion, etc” (Derossi et al., 2017). The history of 3D printing technology can be traced back to the 1980s. In 1981, Hideo Kodama published his account of a functional rapid-prototyping system that could build a solid, printed model through building up layers that corresponded with the cross-sectional slices of the model with photopolymers. In 1984, Charles Hull invented stereolithography that allowed designers to create 3D models using digital data, which could then be brought to a tangible object through the rapid-prototyping system, which was the start of 3D-printing technology (Goldberg, 2018).

In the past decade, 3D printing has brought significant impact to many different industry sectors, including engineering, medicine, aerospace, art, education, as well as food manufacturing (Derossi et al., 2017). This research paper will focus on the impact of 3D printing in the food manufacturing sector.

3D Printing in the Food Manufacturing Sector

3D Printing in Food Manufacturing

3D printing in food was first introduced by researchers from Cornell University through extrusion-based printing. Now, there are four types of 3D printing techniques widely used in the food manufacturing sector. These 3D printing techniques include extrusion-based printing, SLS, binder jetting, and inkjet printing (Liu et al., 2017).

Types 3D Food Printing Techniques

Extrusion-based printing

The extrusion-based printing technology is usually used in printing hot-melted chocolate, soft dough, mashed potatoes, meat puree, cake frosting, processed cheese, and sugar cookies. This technology can also be used in printing non-traditional materials like algae and insects.

3D printed chocolate cat through extrusion-based printing
3D Printed chocolate heart through extrusion-based printing
3D printed mashed potatoes with complex design through extrusion-based printing


Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)

SLS technology is usually used in creating complex structures that are made up of sugar or sugar-rich powders. This method can create various attractive complex structures that could not be produced by conventional ways.

Cake Topper Printed through the SLS technology

Binder Jetting

The method of binder jetting is usually used in constructing edible structures using sugars and starch mixtures. This method allows the production of a wide variety of colorful and tasty edible objects like various kinds of complex sculptural cakes.

3D Printed Cake through Binder Jetting
3D Printed Cake through Binder Jetting

Inkjet Printing

The technology of inkjet printing is usually used in surface filling and image decoration by dispensing edible liquid on the food surface to create appealing images. In this way, this technology is best in creating different images with high resolutions on edible structures like a biscuit, cake, and crackers.

3D Printed food surfaces through inkjet printing
3D Printed food surfaces through inkjet printing

Impact of 3D Food Printing

The application of 3D printing in food manufacturing can bring positive impacts on food and consumers through its highly customizable nature. It allows people to obtain personalized and digitalized nutrition, tailored shape and dimension, customized internal structure and taste (Derossi et al., 2017). It can also simplify the supply chain and enlarge the source of available food material by using non-traditional food materials, including insects, high fiber plant-based materials, and by-products from plants and animals (Liu et al., 2017). However, the application of 3D printing in food manufacturing also leads to societal challenges (Deloitte, 2018).

Benefits

Customization & Enlargement of Sources of Food Materials

In terms of the positive impact the 3D food printing, a major positive impact or potential that 3D food printing has is that food can be personalized and digitalized so that the required nutrition and energy is provided accordingly. In addition to this, the enlargement of sources of materials used in the fabrication of food introduces people to the more non-traditionally expected food and a greater variety of options to choose from.

For instance, the US Army has a very strong interest in the application of 3D food printing in military food primarily due to the following facts:

  1. the technology ensures that the production of meals will not be at a shortage on the battlefield;
  2. meals can be personalized, digitalized, and customized depending on each soldier’s need for nutrition and energy;
  3. the technology offers more options to soldier’s food in terms of the materials used in the fabrication of food (Liu et al., 2017).

In addition, NASA also funded Systems and Materials Research Corporation (SMRC) to investigate the possibility of applying 3D printing for manufacturing food that meets food safety, nutritional stability, and acceptability requirements during long space missions (Liu et al., 2017).

Moreover, as many countries are starting to face aging problems, the issues of nursing home residents having chewing and swallowing difficulties are becoming more serious than before. Softer texture of food will be easier to swallow (Liu et al., 2017). In this case, personalized meals that are produced based on different individuals’ needs for nutrition and energy, physical ability to chew and swallow, and age becomes very useful. In addition, smaller pieces of food will also be easier to chew and swallow for elders. In this case, the ability to tailor shape and dimension very important to produce the meals based on the different individual needs too.

Reproducibility

Another key benefit of 3D food printing is its nature of reproducibility. 3D printing enables chefs to produce exactly the same design for multiple times, especially for those designs that are especially difficult to produce by hand and reproduce. With today’s technology, the ability to elaborate designs and reproduce the special 3D designs helps the production becomes more rapid and ensures the quality of the food design as oppose to hand-made food (Koeing, 2016). In the high-end dining industry, the ability to reproduce complex food design is one of the major elements of fine dining because the quality and reproducibility are highly valued by consumers.  

Simplified Supply Chain

3D food printing can also simplify the customized food supply chain. The robots (food printers) will facilitate the implementation of a strategy that produces the product as orders come in with low overriding costs. The production facilities can be near the end consumers, helping to simplify the customized food supply chain and bring the products to consumers in a more economical manner, specifically with a shorter period of time with fewer human resources being used and higher affordability (Sun et al., 2015). This becomes very beneficial to consumers because it leads to lower prices of customized food as the production process can precisely control the inputs and outputs of the 3D printed food and faster delivery of food to the hands of consumers. The 3D food printing technology can also ensure consistent quality of food products.

Challenges

Although current 3D food printing technology gives us the ability to control the flavor, texture, color, nutritional makeup, shape, and reproducible quality of food. However, the advancement of this technology also raises concerns of the edible materials and other ethical and societal challenges.

Challenges of Material

As the 3D food printing technology gains more popularity, there are some concerns toward the use of edible material, like the health concern for food as the temperature fluctuates. “During the extrusion process in 3D food printing, temperature fluctuations can also represent a health concern for food because the heating/cooking may promote microbial, bacteria, or fungus growth. Thus the industry needs to follow e.g. FDA guidelines regarding appropriate food temperatures” (Pérez et al., 2019). In addition to the temperature fluctuations, food materials with high viscosity and high consistency index are hard to be extruded from the nozzle. The precision of the 3D food printing process will also be affected if the food needs to be printed faster. This is because increasing the printing speed of the 3D food printing process currently requires a larger nozzle, but when the nozzle becomes larger, the precision and quality of printing the shape of the food will become worse than expected. How to adapt to the edible materials used to 3D print food becomes a major challenge.

Ethical & Societal Challenges

In addition to the challenges on the 3D printed food fabrication materials and processes, the ethical and societal implications that 3D food printing brings to the table are more serious.

For instance, “human nutritional needs has been shaped and met by eating whole, natural food. These contain trace elements microbial flora and fauna we are continually discovering the significance of” (Deloitte, 2018). In this sense, we have rich knowledge about what we have discovered as key nutritional elements that human needs for survival, energy, and growth. However, as we are continually learning about nutritional needs, we have to acknowledge that we have limited knowledge about human nutritional needs. We only know the needs that we have discovered, but we don’t know if there are any nutritional needs that are fundamental that has not been discovered yet. If a large portion of the diet is made up of 3D printed customized food, there may be a possibility that we are leaving out key nutritional needs that we have not yet noticed. If there is a risk of unknown malnutrition problems with the 3D printed, personalized, nutrient diet, would the promoting of the benefits of meeting human nutritional needs through customized 3D printed diet still be ethical?

Moreover, like other technologies, 3D food printing is also a process of automation. Whenever the automation topic is brought up, one critical societal question we need to think about should be whether automation that can bring convenience to people is worth the value to exchange for our daily activities, especially the social aspect of preparing and sharing natural food (Deloitte, 2018). To some people, the value of the social aspect of preparing and sharing natural food may be much greater than convenience. To these people who value their daily social activities highly may find a hard time adapting to the usage of 3D food printing because such automation takes away the happiness that can come out from making food. But to other people, this may be the opposite. As a result, the controversy around automation continues.

REFERENCES

Deloitte. “3D Printed Food — Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Always Mean We Should.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 14 Dec. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/deloitte/2018/05/29/3d-printed-food-just-because-we-can-doesnt-always-mean-we-should/#7605603f2e93.

Derossi, A., et al. “Application of 3D Printing for Customized Food. A Case on the Development of a Fruit-Based Snack for Children.” Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 220, 18 May 2017, pp. 65–75., doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.05.015.

Goldberg, Dana. “History of 3D Printing: It’s Older Than You Think [Updated].” Redshift EN, Redshift EN, 21 Dec. 2018, www.autodesk.com/redshift/history-of-3d-printing/.

Koenig, Neil. “How 3D Printing Is Shaking up High End Dining.” BBC News, BBC, 1 Mar. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/business-35631265.

Liu, Zhenbin, et al. “3D Printing: Printing Precision and Application in Food Sector.” Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 69, 1 Sept. 2017, pp. 83–94., doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.08.018.

Pérez, Bianca, et al. “Impact of Macronutrients Printability and 3D-Printer Parameters on 3D-Food Printing: A Review.” Food Chemistry, vol. 287, 27 Feb. 2019, pp. 249–257., doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.090.

Sun, Jie, et al. “A Review on 3D Printing for Customized Food Fabrication.” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 1, 21 Oct. 2015, pp. 308–319., doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.09.057.

“What Is 3D Printing? How Does a 3D Printer Work? Learn 3D Printing.” 3D Printing, 3dprinting.com/what-is-3d-printing/.

Posted on

Watching It All Come Together

ASSEMBLING.

This week we finished our three-week project at the Fab Lab to create an exercise watch that is able to sense whether you are doing curls or twists correctly. This project was designed so that we would have to use as many of the Fab Lab’s tools as possible, and it was an incredibly interesting way to familiarize ourselves with these resources. This week’s portion of the project included coding the Arduino and assembling the rest of the already created parts. To recap, we used a laser engraver to create the wooden parts of the watch, where we created our own designs to both differentiate between when the watch is sensing curls or twists and to make the watch more interesting for a specified consumer base. Next the watch strap was sewn using one of the Fab Lab’s sewing machines. We also connected tilt sensors and wires to the Arduino. Finally, while we were provided with the parts, the holder for the tilt sensor (the little white thing in the images) was 3D printed from the Fab Lab’s 3D printers. It was really gratifying to finally see three weeks’ worth of work culminate into one final project! These multiple tools have also got me thinking on different applications that we could possibly use in our own prototyping projects, and I’m even more excited to explore the opportunities.

TELLING A STORY.

With the remaining time after the watch assembly, we congregated in our groups and storyboarded the experience that we wanted users of our product to have. This included how the user would find out about, attain, and learn to use our product. As a review, I am a part of Team Solestice, and we are creating a detachable tread that would allow leg prosthetic users to walk on ice while minimizing slippage. We created 7 storyboard boxes in total. The first box identifies who we think the users of our product would be, in Solestice’s case, this would be leg prosthetic users. The next box identifies how the user would find out about our product, which Solestice believes would be through either some internet ad or word of mouth from social media. Following, we showed the prosthetic user going to a store to see the product in person, and possibly asking the store clerk more information about how the product works. The fourth box includes the user watching a YouTube video, which would be uploaded by Solestice, on how to put the tread on, take the tread off, etc. In the next two boxes, we have a prosthetic user putting the tread on by themselves and walking fearlessly over ice without slipping. In the final box, we have the user taking the tread off once they have entered an indoor area and storing it easily. This is the vision that we as a team have for Solestice, and we hope to make it a reality!

Posted on

FAB LAB!!!!

This week I wasn’t able to physically be in class due to some unfortunate circumstances. I was however able to visit Jeff and see the Fab Lab prior to this weeks workshops. I learned of some of the complex filments and advanced 3D printers. I got to know a bit of the staff as well. In terms of class, I was able to get up to speed from my wonderful team members. This week was the start of our workshops through the Fab Lab. The class was given a tour of the entire facility by Jeff Ginger, who is the director of the lab. He gave a presentation during last weeks class. After the initial tour the class was split into different workshops within the fablab. Some people were learning the laser cutter while others built circuits.

After this the class went back into their  groups and brainstormed for the remainder of the class period. The TA also assisted during the brainstorming session given a different prompt every 3 minutes. This helped further our ideation and conceptual prototyping, while designing with an open mind. My group was able to rapidly draw up multiple porttype ideas with the given parameters of the prompts. In case you forgot,  we are developing a shoe tread to facilitate walking on ice/snow (all terrain) for prosthetic users. By the end of this activity my team was able to come up with a MVP. They chose the easiest and most feasible of the concepts that we can make a crude prototype of. By next class we will have a usable prototype of our tread attachment. It will have velcro straps to connect with the shoe and acchatable spikes on the tread.

Posted on

New Resources: A Fabulous Lab

FAB-TASTIC.

This week, we got a formal introduction to the Fab Lab. The director of the Fab Lab had previously been a guest speaker in the class, but this time we had a chance to host the class there and use their facilities. We first started with a tour of the place and the different tools they had there. They first went through their policies for use, which was surprisingly accessible. Most tools were only priced at $1 for use, and they allowed people to use their own materials while also having some for sale.

In terms of the tools, the staff went through the multiple applications of the electric cutter, which could not only be used to cut vinyl stickers, but also precision paint things if the knife part was replaced. Next, they showed us the screen printing and embroidering/sewing areas. They also introduced us to the concept of 3D printing on top of meshed fabric, which has been used a lot in the fashion industry recently (seen green scales picture for an example). Next, they showed us the milling, soldering, and electronics area, where they showed some applications, such as milling your own circuit board or working with microcontrollers. Finally, they brought us to the 3D printing and laser engraving workstations. Overall, it was really inspiring to see all these different technologies consolidated in a single area as well as to hear about many of the different projects that have been created at the lab. I was shocked to find out about such an untapped resource that I had not known that I could take advantage of as a resident of the Champaign-Urbana area.

FABRICATION IN PROGRESS.

After our brief but thorough tour, we were split into two groups to attend workshops run by the staff of the Fab Lab. I attended the workshop relating to using the laser engraver as well as the program used to vector model what we want to engrave, Inkscape. Inkscape is an open source program which is quite similar to Adobe Illustrator and allows people to vector model their illustrations; I found it really fascinating that the Fab Lab intentionally uses a lot of open source software so that when they teach people how to use their programs, the skills will continue to be applicable outside of the Fab Lab.

Within Inkscape, we started modelling an exercise watch made out of wood which would be able to track if outpatients are performing their exercises correctly. There will be motion sensors inside the watch, where if the face is facing one way, it would detect bicep curls and facing another way, wrist twists. We first modelled the watch face together while the instructors introduced us to the program, and once we started to become more familiar with Inkscape, the staff released us to add our own designs to the watch. We were instructed to keep the user base in mind and make our unique designs while thinking of certain groups, such as children or elderly outpatients.

With the last 45 minutes of class, we started brainstorming prototypes for our team products. While brainstorming, our TA Mehmet wanted us to think of new ideas quickly, never spending too much time on a single idea. We were instructed to brainstorm in different rounds with different restrictions. For example, one round we had to think as if we had a $0 budget, another if we had an unlimited budget, and yet another if we had to think of our product with children in mind. In the end, we then had to decide which prototype we thought would be the most feasible, easiest to implement, and most effective and decide based on individual team members’ decisions which prototype to make a crude 3D prototype of. In the end, Solestice decided to go with a sole that is attachable by Velcro strips to a shoe, and we will be making this prototype before the next class.

Posted on

Learning from the “Firsts”

For me, this week involved a lot of the “firsts.” It was my first time using the Fusion 360 to design and print out an object, first time interviewing an expert user for the project, and my first time not feeling lost about the direction of the project that the team was taking. With the advancements that we have made this week, I feel more confident that we will be able to provide a tangible product that will help our intended users by the end of the project timeline.

Autodesk 360

This week, one of our focus was on learning how to use the Autodesk Fusion 360. As someone who was hoping to learn about 3D designing software such as AutoCAD and be able to create an object through it, this was an exciting topic. In fact, I was so mesmerized by the shapes that were taking form on my screen while doing the first assignment that I forgot that it was to complete up to part one of the videos. Instead, I ended up completing all three videos to create a final product in one sitting even though it took me several hours.

My first attempt at creating an object on Fusion 360

Although it was fun and I enjoyed the process of creating a product on Fusion 360, there were many frustrating moments throughout the assignment. While trying to interact with the interface, I found out how difficult it is to select a very specific area or a part of an object created. Sometimes, it seems like you clicked the correct side or a part of an object but when viewed from a different angle and zoomed in, that may not be the case. It also frustrated me that there were so many lags with the interface. Many of the times when I tried to change the perspective of the view, the interface would lag, testing my patience. Regardless, I am very satisfied with the result and proud of how much I taught myself going through this one assignment.

The practice with Fusion 360 continued in class with Dan Banach from Autodesk leading the workshop. I was extremely happy to find how easy it was to follow him since I already dedicated a lot of time learning the interface. I am usually afraid of using such technical software since I feel that I am slow with technology but this time, I am looking forward to continuing to hone my skill and see where this leads to.

A phone stand created through Fusion 360 during the workshop led by Dan Banach

Interviewing Ryan

This week, our team finally had an opportunity to interview an expert user of a wheelchair. We were privileged to interview Ryan, one of the mentors for the course. With our goal of creating something that will improve the experience of youth wheelchair users, we began to ask him for his stories, especially focusing on his past. He was extremely nice and opened up to us quickly, sharing his stories and emotions that he felt being a wheelchair user since he was young. While sharing the stories, he shared one particular problem that he continues to face as a user of an automated wheelchair: rain getting into the joystick of his chair, leading to a power outage.

Ryan demonstrating his current solution to prevent rain from getting into the joystick of his chair, which is to simply put a plastic bag over the part

With further discussion, we came to the conclusion that it is better for us to focus on something very specific like Ryan’s challenge, rather than something broad like the one that we have been planning on addressing. Although Ryan liked our original idea, he guided us to a different path since we were under a time constraint. Therefore, we will continue to focus on this particular challenge and address it. We also realized that by pursuing this opportunity, we will be able to utilize the technical skills that we are obtaining in class and provide a tangible product by the end, whereas for the other topic, we weren’t sure how that would happen.

Now that our path of the project is a little more clear, we are planning on returning to our plans and activities that we have done in class to modify and adjust accordingly. Although I have always been nervous that our team was behind and unclear about our destination, I now feel much more confident that we will be able to achieve something that will be of help to users like Ryan by the end of the project. This experience confirmed the importance of working with mentors and understanding the perspectives of the users, so we are hoping to set up more interviews with not only Ryan again, but with other users of wheelchairs also. With the new topic in our mind, we have already started visioning what our product would look like, and we are looking forward to where it will lead to!

Posted on

Ideation

This Wednesday, we participated in a workshop from Autodesk representatives on Fusion 360, an integrated CAD software. We were tasked with creating a phone holder. The representative leading the workshop walked us through the steps to design the phone holder. We are going to print them in the MakerLab later this week. I love this course because we are able to design and create things that we (or others) can actually use. You can see the phone holder I designed here.

Autodesk workshop where we designed phone holders in Fusion 360. The image on the screen is the phone holder we designed.

In addition to designing the basic holder, we also had the opportunity to customize it. We could choose a material, paint colors, add decals, etc. This was my first time utilizing any CAD software, and I really enjoyed it. I thought the Fusion interface was very simple and intuitive. However, I have heard that this is not the case with other CAD softwares. I would love to learn different softwares and see how they differ form each other.

After the workshop, we had about 45 minutes to work with our teams to create “How Might We” statements. We used the post-it notes from last class to help us write them. My team narrowed our work down to 3 “How Might We” statements. These statements are an essential part of the Ideation phase of the design process, so we are testing if our idea to create a tread for prosthetic users will work. This activity challenged us to not be too broad nor too specific. We found it difficult to find a balance. I am looking forward to the next few weeks in the Fab Lab to continue our project!

Posted on

Fusion 360 Workshop

This week we focused on the CAD software, specifically Autodesk Fusion 360. Prior to class this week we learned quick shortcuts and the basic fundamental of parametric designing. Dan Banach, education program manager at autodesk, gave an immersive presentation of the world of Fusion 360. He has more than 30 years of Fusion 360 knowledge. He was there from the very start. It all started with a 3D model of a five and quarter sized floppy disk. Dan also simply broke down the ideology of the cloud product innovative software Fusion 360, into three main components: use, design, and make. After his intro  we had the task of going through a tutorial of creating a phone charging stand. This helped us get even more familiar with the functions and capabilities of the software.


Dan Banach during the Fusion 360 Workshop

I myself have some knowledge and previous with CAD. However its with solidworks, which is a lot different from Fusion 360. You have similar capabilities, but solidworks is far more complicated. I like how simplified Fusion makes computer aided design. The shortcuts and keys were super easy to pick up on and the drop down menus house every function. Solidworks took me some time to get a stable grip on. Both softwares are great in their own respective ways. Regardless of which a person chooses you’ll still get a understanding of not only parametrics but design thinking. The software gives you a different method of approaching problems and design decisions. The simplest thing from a curve to the material itself of the product all attribute to the overall product.

My final design and render of the phone charging stand

After the Fusion Workshop ended we were given another on “How to Statements”  from our TA Mehmet Aydin. This activity allowed us to further explore the centralized themes within our ideas. After choosing the top three themes, which we wrote out in concise sentences, we created a how to statement. Essentially staging  a question of how were were going to do some of the things we sought out to solve. Like mentioned in last week’s presentation his is a cycle within the design process. We came to conclusions last week, but this exercise allowed us to revisited, rethink, and revitalize some of those ideas. I feel like now we have a pretty concret grip on the opportunity and the market in which we’re trying to infiltrate.


Posted on

Week 5

This week we were introduced to four guest speakers: Sneha Subramanian from the Illini service dogs, John Hornick author of “ 3D Printing Will Rock the World”, Jeff Ginger from the CU Community Fab lab, and the Illinois Informatics Institute. We began with a brainstorming session with the Illini Service Dogs. We specially were looking at areas of opportunity with improving disabled users independence with service dogs. Ideas bounced around and some really interesting things came from this. After the brainstorming session John Hornick brought so much of the 3D printing industry to our attention. There are so many trends out there, but John emphasised 3 main trends. One of which is that 3D printing spurs innovation, it also increases democratization. Lastly 3D printing is full customizable. I personally really enjoyed all the different innovative projects globally that John mentioned to us.

Jeff from CU community Fab lab gave a very energetic and passionate overview of the lab itself. He told us of all the resources and network we have here on campus. He then went into showing some of his personal projects, all produced at the CU Fablab. He designed this really cool solar power laptop case that charged his laptop. He also created this octopus dongle sort of thing that has every plug in port you could think of. Jeff seems to really be passionate about innovation and I though his overall presentation was inspirational.

After the guest presentation we were given on from our TA Mehmet Aydin on Design Thinking. During his presentation he introduced us to the Design Thinking Modules. You have Inspiration- Ideation- Implementation model. You then have Empathy- Define ( we focus on defining the opportunity from an empathetic standpoint. Then you have Prototype- Test phase. Mehmet also mentioned the idea of diverging, converging and repeating the entire process. You have to just do it. It kind of ties back to last weak guest Mike Henson statement of, “ Fail early, fail often.” The design process is a process of decision making and doing things. You have to ideated on an idea and act on it. Fail and fail and through each failure new innovation ill emerge.

Once Mehmet’s presentation  we broke off into our teams to do a “Stories & Experience” exercise. The task of the exercise was for us to look at our interview Q/A and diverge deeper insight from them.We were able to really figure out our users frustrations, emotions, limitations, pretty much the good and bad. Solicestice in particular, was able implement the experiences of the user to create more value with our potential product. It gave us a framework to further structure of customer discovery and validation of the idea itself.



Posted on

Week 5 Reflection

This week was a little different for me–due to unfortunate circumstances, I could not be present in class. Furthermore, I could not look at screens all week, so I had very limited communication with my team members. Due to this, my reflection on this week will be centered around my team’s progress in our research.

My team interviewed our mentor, Jenna, this week. As a reminder, our project is focused on creating a shoe tread to facilitate walking on ice and snow for prosthetic users. Some key takeaways from the interview are:

  1. It is important that the tread is light and easy to attach and detach.
  2. The height added from the tread should be as minimal as possible.
  3. The first prototype should fit to gym shoes, since those tend to be the most comfortable shoes.

In addition to interviewing Jenna, I have conducted some more secondary research. I wanted to start learning more about specific materials and designs for our shoe tread. I came across an article that describes the benefits of winter car tires over all-season tires. From the article, I learned that the rubber material is more important than the tread design. Winter tires are made of a rubber compound that remains soft and flexible in low temperatures, which increases traction. Thus, we need to take this into consideration when choosing a material to create the tread with.

Another article I found shares the best gear for walking in snow and on ice. The article showed a variety of tread materials and designs; some were made of rubber, some of stainless steal and some had sharp spikes while others had small cleats. We will need to decide on tread design and material(s) that are lightweight and create good traction on snow and ice. Lastly, through my secondary research, I also found that it is important that the tread can easily fit into a purse or pocket. This way, anyone can use the tread no matter where they are going.