Overview
In this case study, we compared the surface finish of two identical IP Wheels printed at different speeds. The IP Wheel, a spare fan-like design from a previous unused project, served as our test subject. While printer hardware and materials significantly impact output quality, this study specifically examines how print settings affect results and the necessary tradeoffs to optimize performance.
Equipment and Materials
Both parts were printed using the Dyze Pulsar Pellet Extruder on the Compound Dynamics MULE prototype machine, a large format enclosed 3D printer. We used Dark Gray ABS-CF Techmer 1501 material with a 3mm nozzle and 2.9mm extrusion width. The dimensions for both prints were identical at 580mm × 580mm × 222mm.
Part 1: Slower, Higher Quality Print
The first IP Wheel was printed over 13.5 hours and weighed 13.2 pounds (5.99kg). We used a primary print speed of 80mm/s, with the first layer running at a reduced 40mm/s (50% of primary speed). The outer perimeter was printed at just 32mm/s (40% of primary speed). This combination of settings resulted in a smooth finish with minimal defects.
Part 2: Faster, Lower Quality Print
The second IP Wheel was printed in just 6.5 hours using the same material and equipment. We doubled the primary print speed to 160mm/s, while maintaining the first layer at 40mm/s (now 25% of primary speed). Notably, we ran the outer perimeter at full 160mm/s speed (100% of primary), which significantly reduced print time but compromised surface quality.
Analysis of Defects in Faster Pellet 3D Print
The faster print exhibited several quality issues. We observed multiple blobs and zits caused by rapid extruder movement, with defects concentrated near the part center due to variable fill pattern changes. Extrusion buildup occurred when the extruder changed direction. A visible diagonal line appeared from top-left to bottom-right where inside perimeters transitioned from two to one, causing over-extrusion that pushed out the outer perimeter.
Recommendations for Improvement
While maintaining the faster 6.5-hour print time, quality could be improved through several adjustments. Reducing the outer perimeter speed would have the most immediate impact on surface finish. Additional improvements could come from adjusting coast and retract settings. The current temperature settings performed well and would require little to no modification.
Conclusion
The ideal print settings for pellet 3D printing vary by project and require iterative testing to achieve optimal results. This case demonstrates the clear tradeoff between print speed and surface quality, while suggesting specific adjustments that could maintain efficiency without significantly compromising quality.
