3D printing artifacts on a bowl model. Are these a problem?

3D printing is resetting and revolutionizing all fabrication industries. It has taken hold because the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Plus it brings exciting new capabilities we never had before, especially in ceramics. Each disadvantage is being addressed and solved. The stair casing (or more correctly, printing artifacts) visible on this bowl master are often cited as a reason not to adopt 3D. But these are not an issue here. First, most of the surface on this case mold is not exposed on the final piece. Second, vertical printed surfaces, such as the shell around the outside, don't have artifacts. Third, this bowl model is not 3D printed, it is plaster that was poured into a 3D printed shell. Before use, this will be stuck down onto a potter's wheel and tooled smooth. It is then attached to a clamping baseplate and the 3D printed railing clamped around it.

Related Pictures

3D-printing artifacts on a slip cast bottle. Are these a problem?

3D printing artifacts on slipcast ceramic bottles

Here is why the stair-casing artifacts are not the problem people think. These boths were fired at cone 6 oxidation. The dark one is M370C with 10% added raw umber. The other is M370C. Both are glazed using GA6-B Alberta Slip amber transparent. The wood-grain texture on the right is an artifact of 3D-printing - the case mold was printed flat rather than upright (strangely, that is the bottle people want!). But the production bottle is the one on the left and the stair casing is barely visible. Additionally, these are prototypes, the production molds would either be made by printing the model upright or by casting a plaster model of a bottle half, smoothing and soaping it, attaching it to a clamping baseplate and then setting up 3D printed railing around it.

Why 3D design and printing is a better way for slip casting molds for pottery

I dread the traditional mold-making process, the mess, all the supplies and tools involved, my history of failures with it bring mental baggage. I am a potter, I make functional ceramics. I am not a mold-maker, but 3D design and printing have put it within my reach. They are the total reset in all fabrication industries this decade. Their CAD, Fusion 360, is free for hobby. Couple it with a 3D printer and this is the future in pottery too. Here's why:
-It is much more fun! Even failures are fun.
-This is accessible. I already have a computer and 3D printer. I don't have a workshop, workbench, and all the tools for traditional mold making. The 3D process is way less messy and doable in my kitchen.
-I don't have the skillset or talent for traditional mold making. And I am much better at designing on a computer than carving plaster or pushing clay.
-I spend most time on design, pouring the plaster or rubber takes minutes.
-Sanding of flat mating faces is possible (for better seams than I've ever had). This is because natches are added later.
-I can make my own natches and coupling schemes.
-No spare is needed, the 3D-printed pour spouts work better.
-The range of shapes seems limitless. Especially because designs can be split up into pieces, each printed in optimal orientation (and then glued together precisely).
-I make molds through multiple design-print iterations. 3D makes do-overs or changes in design as easy as a reprint and plaster pour. So, I can make a mold just to test an idea!
-Every issue that people present with this approach is seen as a challenge to the engineers making it work. They will solve every one.
-The approach is internet teamable, others can help me during the design part (which is most of the process).

Links

Typecodes	3D printing problems 3D printing for mold making in ceramics requires determination and skill. And a memory for the many problematic techniques.

Got a Question?

Buy me a coffee and we can talk