Ceramic 3D printing tests 03 - How?

15.06.13

Well, not exactly how, as I'm starting from the 'ground up' and there's a great deal to learn. 

But hopefully the collaboration between MIRIAD and KHIO will be the start of forming a larger community of 3D printing hackers and researchers willing to share experience and also to discuss the wider implications of 'digital making'.

The test bars fired to 950°C

KHIO is open at the weekends, so I was able to get in there first thing and unpack the first of our firings. As you can see, the results are 'interesting', the red clay 1:1:2 mixture has almost turned into a fired foam. There's obviously a lot of gas being given off, and not enough clay to bind the bar together. As there is flux (glaze material) in the Potclays powder, the 1:1:2 has held together much better. 

Both the 1:1:3 and 1:1:4 tests are similar, though I haven't tried to snap them yet. 

The next stage was to dip half of these tests in vitreous slip (recipe below) and fire them with the 1000°C test bars. I'll be able to unpack them tomorrow and see how they have fared.

Before leaving the Academy yesterday evening, we set up a new build with some more adventurous tests. And this is what they looked like this morning. Even though the pieces are completely supported by the excess material during the build, there is still a certain amount of distortion. They were printed in the Potclays 1:1:3 powder.

Trine's scan of an African vegetable looks excellent, but I didn't see the original, (or even view the stl file,) so I can't compare.

My cube tests are simply too thin, however I will fire them.

I must add that my architectural piece is designed to look warped! I have slightly re-designed this piece, altering the scale and wall thickness. I'm going to print them tomorrow and hope they are worthy of glazing.










Vitreous Slip Recipe:

These are UK ingredients, but I'm sure equivalents are obtainable in other parts of the world. I use it to make the 3D printed ceramic tests less porous and able to be glazed in the normal way. It is opaque and quite a bright white due to the high china clay content.

China Clay:  1kg
Ball Clay:     1kg
Potash Feldspar: 100gms
Zirconium Silicate (Disperzon): 100gms

It will fire to stoneware and possibly higher, though I personally haven't tried it at porcelain temperatures. It can be applied to plastic clay, though it's easier to apply to biscuit-fired ceramic. It can be stained with oxides and body stains.

Ceramic 3D printing tests 02 - Why?

14.06.13

note the deformation.

The printing of the Potclays powder was a repeat of the red clay tests. 1:1:2, 1:1:3 and 1:1:4 mixtures were all successfully printed. 

It's important to leave the prints in the printer for 2 hours at the very least before removing them. Even after 2 hours some were a little soft and started to bend. Better to leave prints overnight, particularly if more complex parts are being printed.

All the test bars were left to dry on top of a warm kiln overnight and this morning the excess powder was removed in the depowdering unit and the 950°C firing started.

The kiln was still around 100°C from a previous firing, but I decided to take it up slowly - 7 hours to 600°C, then 2 hours to 950°C with a 30 minute soak.

Even though we are awaiting the results of the firings, it seems a good opportunity to print a more complex form. My instinct tells me that that the 1:1:2 mixture will shrink a great deal and probably be the weakest, so I'm inclined to try the 1:1:3 powder. We will see... 

60mm test cube

First of all I quickly created a cube with a sphere removed from the interior. This gives us a simple shape, probably impossible to slipcast that has a surface that just about covers every angle. So it makes a good glaze test, as well as testing the rigidity of the ceramic powder.

I actually set 3 versions printing, one as designed, the other two scaled one dimensionally to allow for possible deformation in the drying and firing.

  

80, 70, 60 mm test cubes

It's important to remember that this is not simply a technical exercise. If successful, there may be all sorts of potential uses for ceramic 3D printing, certainly medical being one of them. But that is not my prime motivation. Rather selfishly I suppose, I hope to be able to print my artworks in ceramics thereby combining my previous experience as a maker of slip-decorated earthenware, my understanding of the 3-dimensional form and my interest in the act of making with this new, so-called post-industrial technology. So it's all about research, not technical research, though that can't be avoided, but research that engages with our fundamental relationship with objects and the making of them.
I feel it is timely to look at this area, not just because we have new tools, but because our increasing reliance on 2-dimensional screens to engage with the physical world has the potential to detach us from the sensory experience and feedback we receive when we take the trouble to venture outdoors, smell those flowers in the garden, pick up that smooth stone or spot the woodpecker calling from a tree. You probably think I'm just being romantic, after all I'm one of the generation that bridges the digital divide, but when I hear about the exciting advances in augmented reality, where it will be possible to surround ourselves with virtual objects, rather than actual, physical stuff then surely it's time to question the very nature of our relationship with objects.
WIll we need to buy another pot or painting to decorate our homes when we will be able to simply download a holographic Ming vase?

Anyhow, I'll just leave that hanging in the air...

Ceramic 3D printing tests - What?

10.06.13 – 20.06.13

Oslo National Academy of the Arts (KHIO)

 

In April, I was invited over to KHIO to give a lecture about my work and to meet the staff in both the ceramics and D-Form departments. Paul Scott, one of my colleagues in MIRIAD is a Professor 2 at KHIO and had the idea to arrange a collaborative venture around the theme of ceramics and print, something that has been a specialism of his for a number of years. However, the planned event is to focus on the 3D printing of ceramics, something that Trine Wester who runs the D-Form 3D printing facility has started to explore.

Back in Manchester, we have acquired 2 ZCorp 406 3D printers, both in need of restoration. The plan is to restore one of them and use it to continue the ceramic printing experiments. Whilst I am waiting for the printer to be housed in a suitable room, I thought a very good use of my time was to head back to Oslo to learn about using ZCorp printers by working with the D-Form team. This time I was keen to explore the ceramic powder that Potclays had developed for 3D printing. I purchased 15 kgs, which just fitted into a small suitcase and passed through airport security without any questions!

On the Monday morning we made a good start by moving the printer, de-powdering unit and computer down into the ceramics department.

The plan was to test and compare red earthenware with the Potclays powder. The recipes are as follows:

RED CLAY	POTCLAYS	ICING SUGAR	MALTODEXTRIN
2		1	1
3		1	1
4		1	1
	2	1	1
	3	1	1
	4	1	1

Each batch was prepared in 3kg batches. Once printed the tests would be fired in batches to 950°, 1000°, 1050° and 1100°C.

I designed a small test bar with a precise 100mm slot in the top to be used to accurately measure shrinkage.

On Tuesday morning the first tests were printed.

There follows a description of how the printer was prepared:

1. Compacting the powder.

2. Levelling the powder

3. Filling the binder tank with zp61 binder fluid

4. Cleaning the print head parking dock with distilled water.

5. Purging the HP10 print head of ink and   bleeding the binder tube for air bubbles.

6. Cleaning the print head 'pogos' with an alcohol swab. (Squeeze the tube to release the alcohol)

7. Print settings,  (note the Bleed Compensation is checked).

8. Powder settings, note that in all other  tests the Shell was 90% and the Core was 85%

9. Printing the binder, (note some ink still visible).

10. Potclays 1:1:4 powder, smoother  and finer than the red earthenware.

Tomorrow we print more Potclays powder variations, so that the firings can commence on Friday.

More to follow...

Leap Motion

Alongside my exploration of 3D printing I am also interested in the software that we engage with to create the virtual artworks. Standard CAD packages were designed for engineers and more recently, animators. As I am neither of these, I find that the software has its limitations. Though there are a number of applications, such as Sculptris and Forger (available for iPad and iPhone) that involve intuitive manipulation of clay-like primitive solids, they go too far in the other direction. I need something that bridges the space in between, in other words a CAD package where I can generate controlled and accurate curves and convert them into 3 dimensional forms and then work intuitively, stretching, pulling, pushing, adding and subtracting in the same way as I do with clay. If anyone reads my ramblings they may reply to say that they already exist in packages such as Freeform, but have you seen the price? And I’m not sure whether it’s possible to import precise forms and then manipulate them. So, I stay with Rhino3D, as it’s what I have used for the past 7 years and works well within its parameters. 

 And then along comes the Leap Motion, a small USB device that according to the manufacturers promises:

 “With a wave of a hand or lift of a finger, you’re about to change the way you use your computer. The Leap Motion Controller senses how you move your hands, the way you move them naturally. So you can point, wave, reach, and grab. Even pick something up and put it down. Just like in real life. It’s an amazing device for the things you do every day and for things you never thought you could do.” 

 I immediately signed up for a pre-order and then applied to receive one as a developer. I figured that someone here would have coding skills beyond my HTML. I gave it to Lewis Sykes, a PhD candidate here at MIRIAD, who passed it on to Ben Lycett, our new coder in residence. And within what seemed like hours, he had started to create a 3D application where the hand can draw a line in space that can be revolved to form a 3D surface. 

 There’s much more to be done and there’s a large community working on Leap Motion apps for all sorts of uses out there, so maybe my wish for an intuitive, but controllable CAD package is a little closer. 

 We will see, I'll report again as we make progress...

Where do I go from here?

-->

April and May have been busy, a pretty hectic combination of work and play. 

It started with a trip to Oslo National Academy of the Arts, where I was invited to give a lecture about my practice. It was also an opportunity to meet the staff in both the Ceramics department and in the 3D printing facility. The facilities are extremely impressive, all housed in a beautiful 19th century sail factory complex.

I am planning to return for a longer period in order to experiment with their ZCorp 310 that they have just started to use with ceramic powders. The plan is to create a network of 3D printer practitioners exploring the theme of ceramics, culminating in an event in the autumn of 2014.

A few days after my return to the UK, I set off for a holiday in France with my wife Vicky, our friend Jan and my bike. The trip by train to Montelimar was excellent, though carrying my road bike in a bag wasn't that easy. Whilst there I cycled from the Drôme, through the Gorge de L'Ardeche, down into Languedoc to see friends, then up through the Cevennes to be reunited with Vicky and Jan in Ispagnac, a beautiful village at the entrance to the Gorge du Tarn.

I had to cut the holiday short in order to return to London for Collect, held again at the Saatchi Gallery, where I was showing some new pieces with Adrian Sassoon. The show was definitely up to it's usual standard, and I was lucky to have the Prtlnd Vase purchased by the Art Fund for the New Walk Gallery in Leicester. The curators plan to open a digital gallery and had researched my work and in particular the Prtlnd Vase for their presentation to the Art Fund.

Whilst at Collect, I took part in the first ‘Fielding Talk: Lives in Craft, launched in memory of Amanda Fielding, the writer and curator who died in 2012. This event, …celebrates Fielding’s passion and knowledge for the sector through the voices and experiences of the most exciting and innovative makers in contemporary craft.’ Glenn Adamson from the V&A chaired it with Clare Twomey and myself in discussion around the theme of the relationship between makers and curators. The acquisition and positioning of ‘digital craft’ has been problematic for curators as there was uncertainty as to the placing of the work. Fortunately for my contemporaries and I, there now appears to be a confidence and keen interest in our work, though the interpretation of challenging pieces can still be problematic for the curators.

Back in Manchester, I have been continuing to explore the Mcor Matrix 300 printer that 'prints' in layers of paper. It has been a temperamental machine, but a technician’s recent visit appears to have made it operate more smoothly. I set it off this morning to print the first of 4 pieces to be used as moulds for the making of ceramic sprigs for a version of the Prtlnd Vase. The body of the vase was printed in 4 sections by Mcor, as our machine failed to build them. I plan to have a mould produced and if talks with Wedgwood succeed, I will slipcast it in traditional Jasperware.

-->

And this leads to the question I pose in the title of this piece, “Where do I go from here?’ The reason I ask this question is that I am going through a period of reflection about my work. Over the past 7 years I have produced a body of work that has investigated 3D printing through the interpretation and re-design of familiar objects such as Wedgwood and Sèvres ceramics, appropriating their cultural significance to make comments about craft, values and the virtual world that we increasingly inhabit.

As I have always said, I don’t want to use the technology for its own sake, there has to be an idea that underpins its use. I am now at the stage where I feel I need to go further, in terms of material and process. The aim has been and still is to produce ceramic 3D printed artworks, combining my previous experience and knowledge of ceramics history with ‘post-industrial’ manufacturing. But this is where Glenn Adamson steps in.

-->In his new book, ‘The Invention of Craft’ he states that “…new forms of practice will inevitably be forged through the synthesis of the analogue and the digital…”[1]

The Mcor Matrix printer alerted me to the journey the data travels between the computer software and the printed artwork. The only difference between the data used to produce the paper prints of the Prtlnd vase and the SLS version, is scale. However, unlike the SLS original the faceted sides look as though they have been made from folded paper. Something has happened in the process that gives the object a softer, ‘crafted’ look. So this version will not only refer to the relationship between actual and the virtual from the standpoint of our increasing engagement of the real world through a screen, but also record the material process.

The other thought-provoking piece of writing comes from Justin McGuirk in the Collect 2013 catalogue. He is talking about craft ‘fetishism’ and the difference between being seduced by electronic gizmos and crafted objects. “The philosopher Bruno Latour might argue that we are once again seduced by the ‘thingness’ of things. In his essay ‘Why has critique run out of steam’ he extrapolates Martin Heidegger’s distinction between objects and things. He writes ‘The hand-made jug can be a thing, while the industrially made can of Coke remains an object. While the latter is abandoned to the empty mastery of science and technology, only the former, cradled in the respected idiom of art, craftsmanship and poetry, could deploy its rich set of connotations.’ So we have a distinction here between the mute machine-made object and the poetic hand-made thing. Does this distinction help us?”[2]

And where does it place my work?

Do I fall between the 2 stools? And is this why I feel I need to bring a physical, tactile connection back into my work?

I shouldn’t care what the Adamsons and McGuirks think, as I am a maker not a critical historian, writer or philosopher, but even before my days at the RCA I have attempted to justify my output. It’s part of my methodology and one that sometimes weighs heavy.

---

[1] Glenn Adamson, The Invention of Craft (London: Bloomsbury, 2013) p.166

[2] Justin McGuirk, Fashion, Fetish and Craft, (Crafts Council 2013) pp.19, 20