Alatorre 1

Andrew Alatorre

Peter Ayala,

MECENG 198

12 December 2024

Final Project

Making and creation are endless using 3D printing techniques, but the process does not

end once an object has been made. Post-processing significantly enhances a print and is crucial

for achieving precise and functional results. For my final project, I chose the challenging task of

creating a two-part 3D-printed puzzle designed to connect perfectly. By incorporating spheres

and magnets, the puzzle achieves smooth and flexible movement; however, this added

complexity to the design and post-processing phases. To meet the project’s requirements, I

utilized advanced 3D modeling and employed SLA and resin printing technologies to achieve the

necessary level of detail. Additional post-processing steps were carried out to refine the fit,

finish, and optimize the functional aspects of the print. In this paper, I will explain the design

process, describe the 3D printing techniques I used to create the object, outline the

post-processing methods applied to fine-tune the parts, and discuss the results of my work, as

well as the lessons I learned from this intricate and rewarding project.

For building the two-part puzzle, I combined two disparate approaches to 3D printing in

order to examine the effects that varied printers, materials, and support structures would have on

the aesthetics, structural integrity, and fullness of the models. First, I used a Form 3 resin 3D

printer through stereolithography (SLA) technology to create prints with excellent resolution,

smooth surface textures, and increased precision. This printer was chosen as it was able to

produce a more robust and refined product, which is paramount given that the puzzle has to fit
 Alatorre 2

the interaction space perfectly and be able to go through multiple uses without failure. The resin

printer needed standard supports, which I used, bearing in mind that they are highly rigid and

provide the printed item with adequate support during the actual printing. Furthermore, I printed

another version of the puzzle using a Prusa FDM 3D printer located in the Jacobs Makerspace.

This printer was selected not only because of its location, but also to see how FDM printing, with

its use of filament and tree-style supports, would impact the smoothness and quality of the final

product. The reason for using both printers was to compare the characteristics of models printed

with resin and those printed with filament: the effects of support structures on the ability to

remove the models and the strength of the models. Since I printed the same design on both

printers and used the same settings for both, it became easier to control for variability and

observe whether the differences were attributable to the printer or material type. This routine

approach helped me formulate a better understanding of how particular printing technologies can

define the working characteristics and surface appearance of products made through 3D printing.

The comparison between the printing results of the two printers highlighted the

differences in surface roughness, detail of the build, and mechanical strength. The outer layer of

the resin print was glossy and matte, while the bottom layer was tacky and uneven because the

original support materials were not fully vaporized and removed. The texture of the Prusa print

was coarser compared to the gel-like surface of the resin print, but the bottom layer was much

more leveled and fit well into the base. While the resin printer provided a much more detailed

and stronger print overall, it had the disadvantage of possessing very fragile uncured support

structures that were very hard to remove once they had set; early removal left a rough surface on

the base of the finished product. Each of these prints encountered problems with the interior

cavity where the spheres were supposed to move. The hole’s architecture was further
 Alatorre 3

complicated by the Prusa’s tree-style supports, which made the cavity surface rough and difficult

to manage, in comparison to the resin printer, which had a similar but less pronounced problem.

For post-processing, the Prusa print was very easy to work with as I was able to use wire cutters

to remove some of the stringy bits, then sanded the model down a bit, and used the X-Acto knife

to get rid of more of the string, as shown in the figure below. The resin print was similar but

involved using the same tools with the application of heat to ease the process. However, since I

have not done many prints with resin, some areas blended poorly, especially due to a lack of

adequate curing and over-reliance on heat. These issues, along with the uncured supports, posed

problems in attaining the intended high-precision surface finish.

However, these challenges reveal that the idea of fitting two puzzle pieces together works

well, thus executing the design process and proving that the printers had achieved the correct

dimensionality. Unluckily, I did not manage to acquire spheres early enough to incorporate them

into the main idea of positive interaction with the puzzle; thus, I failed to comprehensively assess

the efficiency of the design while in motion. Nevertheless, this project provided information on

the appropriate types of printing methods and materials and the weaknesses that can be

encountered in the course of their implementation. It also revealed that adequate curing and

post-processing are necessary to obtain an optimal end product with sound physical and

mechanical properties. I will be using these lessons in my next 3D printing sessions, especially

when I am dealing with additional layers of intricacy or new elements such as resin in the

designs. Finally, the comparison of the two printers demonstrated how the choice of materials,

type of support structures, and final surface treatment is essential to the appearance and usability

of the final printed model.