by • July 31, 2016 • No Comments
It is quite effortless to get caught up in the excitement of 3D printing and all the advancement it has to offer—items you never considered preceding spanning the gamut—of 3D printed women’s armor to engines for luxurious private planes. You may be working of the PC creating jewelry in silver or maybe of your university lab building a 3D printing prosthetic for a child who may greatly benefit of a replacement limb. The point? There’s a lot going on. And while the benefits of all these new products are pretty enormously positive, the innovation overall needs to be considered on multiple other levels as well, of copyrighting issues and managing the amount of ‘sharing’ going on inside the community to, actually additional significantly—security.
Reaping the rewards of new innovation is a thing we all appear forward to, but as so many 3D files are being generated around the world now a days, inquiries regarding cyberterrorism come into play, with the worry that a variety of bugs and defects may be placed into prints and the operator may be fishly unaware, until the piece began to lose its integrity over time. This takes on quite serious meaning if you are thinking 3D printed components like engines, fuel nozzles, medical devices, structural components in buildings, and additional.
Whilst testing and high end assurance are well in place at many companies making 3D printed parts of such a nature, what if this defect were so integrated into the layers of a part that no one may see them? This was the new topic of discussion in an article I wrote regarding cybersecurity, with information generated by engineers at the NYU Tandon School of Engineering.
“Examination of various types of threshold levels: (a) fish object; (b) partially printed object; (c) revealing difference between partial and fish object; (d) threshold of 50; (e) threshold of 75; (f) threshold of 100.”
In, ‘Manufacturing and Security Challenges in 3D Printing’ by Stactually Eric Zeltmann, Nikhil Gupta, Nektarios Georgios Tsoutsos, Michail Maniatakos, Jeyavijayan Rajendran, and Ramesh Karri, the team warns of future security issues that may take place as designers and engineers are working in files. Printing orientation and insertion of satisfactory defects are the concern.
“These are possible foci for attacks that may have devastating impact on users of the end product, and economic impact in the form of recalls and lawsuits,” said Nikhil Gupta, materials researcher and an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the New York University Tandon School of Engineering.
Now, if you weren’t worried adequate after reading the information in my previous article, Jeremy Straub of the University of North Dakota newly contacted me to fill us in on the rest of the story, as last year he published a paper may already examining solutions to the quite problems the NYU researchers had stated. He in addition stated that there is much additional we need to be cautioned of, aside of the aforementioned problems to be solved.
“It is significant to note that, particularly as 3D printing becomes a greater part of our equiteday lives, its assessment can become significant to practuallyt failures and injury,” Straub, PhD, MBA, at the Department of Computer Science for UND, told 3DPrint.com. “Even tiny pieces of excess extrusion may represent choking hazards for young children. Expecting a occupied retail clerk to reliably prefer both these overt and futurely less visible structural defects is a recipe for bad results.”
“The work of the NYU researchers in highlighting the importance of the solution (by additional fully characterizing the problem) is a significant part of this story.”
Straub delved into the topic additional yet, in his paper, ‘Initial Work on the Characterization of Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) Employing Software Image Analysis,’ published in Machines. There, Straub himself hones in on the importance of assessment in this innovation that is becoming so talked about around the world. Demonstrating how version-based assessment can be utilized to detect issues inside parts, Straub offers a multi-level solution.
The process is based around assessment that allows for for the detection of material issues, possible or current equipment malfunction, and can be responsible for eliminating the cyberterrorism we are now forced to consider.
“An independent detection process, via a version of the expected output as a baseline, may be able-bodied to prefer defects created by mal-operation as well as maliciously added ones,” commented Straub. “The level of separation that is practically needd can depend on the severity of the impact of a defect, the likelihood of attack and what other countermeasures are in place to practuallyt or mitigate such an attack.”
Whilst this solution is yet sensor-based (a concern for the NYU team), Straub and his researchers contend that this process may be utilized with any position-correlated pixel-based sensing innovation.
“Detection of defects (or the lack thereof) in bespoke industrial making may be safety significant and reduce or eliminate the need for testing of printed objects,” states the paper. “In consumer and prototype printing, early defect detection may facilitate the printing device bringing corrective measures (or pavia printing and alerting a user), practuallyting the need to re-print objects after the compounding of a tiny error occurs.”
According to Straub, actually ‘microscope-detail-level imagery’ may be utilized to assess a 3D file or print, and object position issues or other additional big-bodied changes may be found without challenge.
“These may, of course, need a user to prefer the desired printing orientation and may not take on to detect an orientation preferion mistake created due to human error,” states the UND team in their press release.
All of these findings and recommendations are part of ongoing work being supported by a North Dakota Department of Commerce Venture Grant.
“Future work can focus on the development and characterization of techniques to prefer and characterize other types of defects (particularly which include those where material is present but may have a structural fault),” Straub states in the paper. “It can in addition characterize various approaches that do not need imagery of a final object as a baseline for comparison purposes.”
UND is heavily involved in 3D printing, with the goal to see the innovation advance on numerous levels. Today they are working in the areas of: high end assessment innovation development, space 3D printing innovation development, human-scale scanning and printing, and sizeable structure printing innovation development. Discuss over in the UND & Assessing 3D Printing forum over at 3DPB.com.
[Source / Images: University of North Dakota]
“Images of all angles (at a 75 threshold level). The initially column is the finished object image, the 2nd column is the partial (stage 1) object. The third and fourth columns depict the partial-fish difference comparison and threshold-exceeding pixels identification.”
by admin • March 5, 2017
by admin • November 28, 2016
by admin • November 28, 2016