(506) 2240-6804
Fusion 360 threads for 3d printing
Threads In 3D printed parts
Printing the threads in 3D printed parts is possible, and as you can see from the testing video below it works quite well even in high load end use applications. Through testing we have done here at F3DP we have found its possible to print threads as small as 6-32 or M3 into 3D printed parts. This page will teach you how to go about designing in these threads for 3D printed parts.
Thread Strength Testing: Nylon 12 Material
Tensile strength test of MJF parts with larger printed in threads
Tensile strength test of MJF parts with smaller printed in threads
Thread Strength Testing: TPU Rubber Material
Tensile strength test of TPU Rubber MJF parts, helicoil thread insert vs. printed in thread
What machines is it possible to print threads into 3D printed parts with?Threads in 3D printed parts using an HP MJF machine with Nylon 12
This guide will be specifically talking about threads for 3D printed parts coming off of the HP MJF technology. The MJF machine is unique in that it allows for very fine features to be printed in any orientation without the need for support while still being able to use high strength materials like Nylon. The next closest technology that would be able to produce threads would be SLS, but these machines can’t capture the same level of detail as the MJF so they are limited to 1/4-20 or M6 threads or bigger. Then there are the liquid polymer machines like Polyjet, SLA, CLIP, DLP, ect. These machines can absolutely print threads down to 8-32 or M4, but the hole must be oriented in the vertical direction from the print bed.
If the hole is horizontal it will end up with support in it and the 3D printed thread will not turn out. Lastly, FDM technology is not suited to print in any threads under 1/2-13 or M12, and they have to be oriented vertically from the machines print bead.
Our in-house engineering group works with all the major CAD software’s, but the one that is the easiest to use for adding threads into a 3D printed part is Solidworks. The reason for this is that it has a built in tool that will automatically add in the correct thread profile for you. For this reason this guide is built around this software, and the following video is a tutorial that will walk you through how to add threads in 3D printed parts:
How To Design 3D Printable Threads – NUTHow To Design 3D Printable Threads – BOLTHere is a really good tap / drill chart for reference.
For those not using Solidworks for their CAD design software we have also collected thread design how to video’s for a lot of the other major CAD design software’s on the market:
Our other divisions:
close ×
Get a Quote:
Upload your files and fill out the information below to begin the quoting process.
Free STL file Custom Threads with Fusion 360 w/ Tolerances・3D printing model to download・Cults
M2, M3, M4 & M5 Button Head Screws, Nuts and Washers
Free
Metric Socket Head Screw, f3d, stp and STL Files (M2-M10)
Free
Metric Nuts, f3d, stp and STL files (Size M2 through M10)
Free
Metric Button Head Screw, f3d, stp and STL Files (M2-M10)
Free
Bryar Pistol
Free
Painting Pyramid
Free
Standard Nuts, f3d, stp and STL files (Size #0 through 5/16in)
Free
Thermal Detonator Stand
Free
Best 3D printer files of the Tools category
Scissor Paint Rack (Apple Barrel)
€5.
34
Protective visor / Face shield
Free
Parametric BIC Pencil Holder - Hyperboloid
Free
Structure for saw / Structure pour scie
Free
Support for taking overhead shots
Free
Tool holder for oil filter socket 14 sided 031 I for screws or peg board
Free
3D printing tool holder
€1
Cherry pitter
Free
Best sellers of the category Tools
PRECISION DIAL INDICATOR 3D PRINTING DIY
€1.90
ENDER 3 S1/PRO SPRITE, V3 AIR DUCT 5015 OR 4020
€2.49
3D Printer Tool Holder V3.
0€1.06
ARTEMIS -> Magazine for Alligator 2 || 6.5" Arrows || Repeating crossbow
€6.25
3D Printed Strain Wave Gear (Harmonic Drive)
€4.99
Fast-Print Paint Bottle Rack (6 Sizes)
€2.91
Phone holder
€2.49
Cut-Man - PET bottle cutter with handle!
€3.49
FLSUN v400 display holder
€4.99
SUPERBOX
€1.50
Ender 3 S1 Fan Duct for stock Fan
€1
Ender 3 Briss fang Gen2, Red lizard, spider, nf crazy, dragonfly, etc.
€1.80
well-engineered: Hemera fan duct
€2.
50
Spartan Pen Holder
€1.80
BMG E3D V6 Direct Drive for Creality Ender 3 (Pro/V2) & CR-10
€4.49
Armadillo - Flex Wire Conduit
€1.72 -30% €1.20
Would you like to support Cults?
You like Cults and you want to help us continue the adventure independently? Please note that we are a small team of 3 people, therefore it is very simple to support us to maintain the activity and create future developments. Here are 4 solutions accessible to all:
ADVERTISING: Disable your AdBlock banner blocker and click on our banner ads.
AFFILIATION: Make your purchases online by clicking on our affiliate links here Amazon.
DONATE: If you want, you can make a donation via PayPal.
WORD OF MOUTH: Invite your friends to come, discover the platform and the magnificent 3D files shared by the community!
Fusion 360 vs. AutoCAD. Which application to choose for 3D printing?
There is no doubt that 3D printers can do a lot of great things. But to get the most out of them, you'll need a good CAD program to create your own 3D models. The two most popular options are Fusion360 and AutoCAD.
Now that you've narrowed down your choices to these two CAD packages, how do you know which one is right for you?
There is so much information to think about that it can be quite a difficult decision. In this post, we will walk you through a detailed guide, taking a close look at the specifications, features, and differences of both apps to make your choice easier.
Which application is best for beginners?
Both Fusion 360 and AutoCAD are designed for people with at least some experience in 3D design, but that doesn't mean newbies should give up right away.
Fortunately, it won't take years to learn the usable design of both programs. Instead, you only need to understand a few basic terms and concepts to get started.
If 3D modeling software is still too complicated for you, you can always order 3D printing from 3D4U with pre-modeling of your project.
Comparison of Fusion360 and AutoCAD.
Both programs are similar in terms of functionality and user interface. However, they do have some clear differences. Below we have provided a table showing the differences between AutoCAD and Fusion360.
| Fusion360 | AutoCAD |
| Designed for freeform models. | Emphasizes models based on geometry. |
| Works mainly with cloud technologies. | Works mainly with local and network files, but has the ability to save to the cloud. |
It includes a lot of solid features and functions, but is a little more difficult to learn. | Fewer features, making it easier to learn. |
| Capable of creating incredibly detailed 3D models that are very well suited for 3D printing. | Can create both 2D and 3D drawings that will be primarily used in construction and engineering environments. |
| Ideal for modeling and prototyping products. | Suitable for developing detailed drawings and plans for manufacturing parts. |
| Mainly used by mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and machining and manufacturing specialists. | It is mainly used by builders, engineers and architects. |
| Cannot be controlled using the command line. | You can control it from the command line. |
What is the best CAD program and why?
Now that we know the difference in features and functions, we can begin to judge which CAD program is best for our needs as a 3D printer user and 3D model maker.
Whether you decide to buy a 3D printer for your home or a 3D printer for your business, you will need modeling skills to bring your ideas to life.
In the next section, we compared two applications in five different categories and determined a winner in each.
User support.
Both AutoCAD and Fusion360 are owned by Autodesk. So the customer support for both of these apps is very similar.
Fusion360 is mainly used by private users so you will probably find more questions and answers online than on AutoCAD, which is somewhat of an industry software.
Winner: Draw.
The complexity of the study.
Fusion360 includes many complex features that make it quite difficult to start learning, but most of the commands are intuitive.
AutoCAD is much more limited and easier to learn and master.
Even though AutoCAD takes a lot of effort to learn, it's still generally easier than Fusion360.
AutoCAD has been around for a long time and there are many tutorials available on the Internet.
However, Fusion360 has a very large following and is probably the more popular option for hobby users, which means that with its huge community, the average person will easily find answers, tutorials, and tips for their project.
Winner: AutoCAD.
Possibilities.
Fusion360 and AutoCAD can create 3D models in virtually unlimited shapes and sizes.
However, Fusion360 has an advantage over AutoCAD in that it can create more complex designs, including:
- Application of materials to desired shapes;
- Inclusion in the development of the user interface of special design tools;
- Materials for stress testing in real conditions;
- Universal bolt hole tool;
- AI-based part design;
Winner: Fusion360.
User experience.
AutoCAD and Fusion360 are both user-friendly because both have intuitive option menus, well-designed icons, and an identical 3-axis (x, y, z) workspace.
The difference is that Fusion360 has a right-click context menu that improves your workflow and saves you time, while AutoCAD comes with the classic "command line".
Which is better is more of a personal preference.
The average private user of Fusion360 will feel more familiar.
Winner: Fusion360.
Simulation.
The clear winner here is Fusion360 as finite element stress modeling (FEM) cannot be done with AutoCAD.
When running this type of simulation, you will need to apply it to the material qualities of your 3D model. These material qualities include ductility, tensile strength, thermal resistance, and fracture strength.
With simulation models, you can measure the force required to fail, allowing you to refine your design in the virtual world before sending it to print.
You can also stress analyze products with more than one ingredient. This allows you to assemble several parts together and determine the loads on the weakest link in the product.
After a thorough analysis of your project, all you have to do is choose and buy the right consumable for 3D printing.
Winner: Fusion360.
Rendering.
Rendering is great for seeing how your 3D print will look in real life.
Both Fusion360 and AutoCAD can efficiently realize and create amazing photorealistic images.
And since spectacle is an important factor in product development, you need to choose the 3D modeling software that will allow you to achieve your desired goal.
This is what you can achieve with AutoCAD and Fusion360, making them the perfect choice.
Winner: Draw.
Assemblies.
Assemblies allow you to connect multiple components together and connect them using common engineering links and mechanisms so you can see how your assembly will move in real life.
When it comes to assembly, the clear winner here is Fusion360. And this should come as no surprise, since most modern CAD programs blur the line between a real product and a virtual model.
This example is well illustrated when assigning constraints and relationships in 3D models.
For example, with Fusion360 you can model an internal combustion engine and put together all the components, such as pistons, connecting rod and crankshaft, just like in a real engine.
Therefore, you can see how the motor starts and rotates just like in the real world.
This feature is handy for checking that your custom builds will fit together and move as you expect before 3D printing them.
Winner: Fusion360.
Overall winner: Fusion360.
While AutoCAD is a popular and high quality 3D modeling software, Fusion360 is overall the best choice for those of us who use it to design 3D printed parts.
With Fusion360, you can create any 3D model efficiently and productively, whether it's a phone case, gaming miniatures or a drone.
AutoCAD 3D modeling software overview.
AutoCAD specifications.
AutoCAD 3D modeling software is used to create both 2D and 3D models in the manufacturing industry and AEC - Architecture (architecture), Engineering (mechanical engineering) & Construction (construction).
AutoCAD Core Features:
Electrical toolset: AutoCAD integrates a standard electrical symbol library and simplified schematic diagramming. This feature is ideal for electricians and engineers.
Map 3D: AutoCAD 3D modeling software can easily read and edit GIS (Geographic Information System) topology for use in design, planning and geodata management.
Architectural toolset: this program includes specialized automatic tools that allow you to efficiently create architectural drawings and documentation. As a result, it is an ideal program for both architects and other architecture experts.
Mechanical toolset: although it is almost identical to the electric tool set, it is integrated with mechanical components and parts. This function is most often used by mechanical specialists.
Plant 3D: This essential feature helps users create the diagrams and drawings needed for plant design.
AutoCAD system requirements.
| Operating system. | Windows 10 (64-bit only), Windows 8.1, or Microsoft® Windows® 7 SP1. |
| Memory. | 8 GB, but 16 GB recommended. |
| Processor type. | 2.5 GHz, but 3 GHz or more recommended). |
| Disk space. | 6.0 GB. |
| Video card. | 1 GB GPU with 29 GB/s bandwidth and DirectX 11 compatibility, but 4 GB GPU with 106 GB/s bandwidth and DirectX 11 compatibility is recommended.0026 |
Pros and cons of AutoCAD.
Pros.
- If necessary, you can add cloud storage to your subscription.
- has been the industry standard for decades.
- Although designed for 2D design, it can also perform 3D modeling.
- Excellent customer support and many online guides to help you in case of any problems.
- It does not need the cloud or the Internet to work properly, as it uses network and local files.
- This professional design software can be customized to suit your needs.
Cons.
- Proper use may take some time, especially if you are new to 3D modeling and drafting.
- This is primarily a 2D design program and focuses on that, not 3D.
- Computer requires more processing power than Fusion360.
- This is mainly a Windows program and although there is a Mac version, it has other features.
Fusion360 3D modeling software overview.
Fusion360 specifications.
Fusion360 cloud-based CAD software is commonly used in the manufacturing and AEC industries due to its many features. Some of the key features that make it popular include:
Cloud Software: This makes Fusion360 enable teams to work and collaborate in real time towards a common goal. This makes it easy and quick to meet project deadlines.
Simulation: Fusion360 simulation software includes simulation features such as modal frequency, static stress, bending, and non-linear stress.
3D Modeling & Design: With Fusion360 you can perform parametric, mesh, surface and any other major modeling standard. You can also work with assemblies, which vary depending on the complexity of the project, or with independent components.
Data Management: With Fusion360 you can efficiently manage metadata and data related to projects and their files. In addition, all data about your files is stored securely in the cloud.
Rendering: Fusion360 can render photorealistically and detail both 2D documents and drafts.
Electronic versatility: With this 3D modeling software, you can work with various tools dedicated to PCB manufacturing and design.
Fusion360 system requirements.
| Operating system. | Windows 10 (64-bit only), Windows 8.1, or Microsoft® Windows® 7 SP1 Apple® macOS™ Sierra v10.12; Apple® macOS™ High Sierra v10.13; Apple® macOS™ Mojave v10. 14. |
| Memory. | 3 GB RAM (4 GB or more recommended). |
| Processor. | 64-bit processor. |
| Disk space. | 2.5 GB. |
| Video card. | 512MB GDDR RAM or more, except for Intel GMA X3100 cards. |
Pros and Cons of Fusion360.
Pros.
- It uses the cloud, which means you can comfortably move your computer from one location to another without disrupting your workflow.
- It's easy and simple to learn and use, making it a great choice if you're new to this type of software. Therefore, you do not need to spend a lot of time learning how to use it correctly.
- Includes both organic and parametric modeling and provides you with a changelog.
- You can find many online courses and materials to hone your skills in using this 3D modeling software.
- It's very powerful and you don't have to design carefully to get exceptional quality 3D models.
Cons.
- Because it uses cloud technology, it cannot work without a fast internet connection.
- Sometimes when drawing complex 3D models, the process becomes slow.
- Your use of the cloud may affect your work if there are any issues or failures.
Conclusion.
Which is better between AutoCAD and Fusion360 is one of the most common questions we get asked about 3D modeling software. I hope this guide has helped answer any of your questions and made it easier for you to make your decision.
In most cases, Fusion360 is the best choice for 3D printer users. Fusion360 was designed to be a complete 3D design package and is virtually limitless in the possibilities of creating any shape you can imagine.
Our company uses Fusion360 in its 3D printing studio in Odessa. We always meet the needs of our customers and, when providing a 3D printing service, we optimize your project to minimize your costs while maintaining the quality and durability of the product.
Antibacterial plastics
References :
1. Ziegler-Graham, K.; MacKenzie, E.J.; Ephraim, P. L.; Travison, T. G.; Brookmeyer, R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 422-429. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. VA Office of Inspector General. Helathcare Inspection Prosthetic Limb Care in VA Facilities; VA Office of Inspector General: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
3. Kuret, Z.; Burger, H.; Vidmar, G.; Maver, T. Adjustment to finger amputation and silicone finger prosthesis use. Disabil. Rehabil. 2018.1-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Biddiss, E.A.; Chau, T.T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2007, 31, 236-257. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Butkus, J.; Dennison, C; Orr, A.; Laurent, M.S. Occupational Therapy with the Military Upper Extremity Amputee: Advances and Research Implications.
Curr. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Rep. 2014.2.255-262. [CrossRef]
6. Routhier, E; Vincent, C; Morissette, M.J.; Desaulniers, L. Clinical results of an investigation of pediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2001, 25,119-131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Bosnians, J.; Geertzen, J.; Dijkstra, P.U. Consumer satisfaction with the services of prosthetics and orthotics facilities. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2009, 33, 69-77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Shim, J.-H.; Lee, Y.-H.; Lee, J.-M.; Park, J.M.; Moon, J.-H. Wrist-driven prehension prosthesis for amputee patients with disarticulation of the thumb and index finger. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1998, 79, 877-878. [CrossRef]
9. Nallegowda, M.; Singh, U.; Khanna, M.; Babbar, A. Temporary Upper Limb ALIMS Prostheses—A New Design. Indian J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2010, 21, 1-4.
10. Bowker, J.H.; Michael, J. W.; Surgeons, A.A.O.O. Atlas of Limb Prosthetics: Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles; Mosby Year Book: Maryland Heights, MO, USA, 1992.
11. Godymchuk, A.; Frolov, G.; Gusev, A.; Zakharova, O.; Yunda, E.; Kuznetsov, D.; Kolesnikov, E. Antibacterial Properties of Copper Nanoparticle Dispersions: Influence of Synthesis Conditions and Physicochemical Characteristics. IOP Conf. Ser. mater. Sc. Eng. 2015, 98, 012033. [CrossRef]
12. Palza, H. Antimicrobial polymers with metal nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. sci. 2015, 16, 2099-2116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Muwaffak, Z.; Goyanes, A.; Clark, V.; Basit, A. W.; Hilton, S.T.; Gaisford, S. Patient-specific 3D scanned and 3D printed antimicrobial polycaprolactone wound dressings. Int. J Pharm. 2017,527,161-170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Gadi, B.; Jeffrey, G. Copper as a Biocidal Tool. Curr.
Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 2163-2175. [CrossRef]
15. Liu, Y.; He, L.; Mustapha, A.; Li, H.; Hu, Z.Q.; Lin, M. Antibacterial activities of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Escherichia coli 0157:H7. J.Appl. microbiol. 2009, 107, 1193-1201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Zuniga, J.M.; Katsavelis, D.; Peck, J.; Stollberg, J.; Petrykowski, M.; Carson, A.; Fernandez, C. Cyborg beast: A low-cost 3d-printed prosthetic hand for children with upper-limb differences. BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8 , 10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Zuniga, J.M.; Carson, A. M.; Peck, J. M.; Kalina, T; Srivastava, R.M.; Peck, K. The development of a low-cost three-dimensional printed shoulder, arm, and hand prostheses for children. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 2016, 41, 205-209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Zuniga, J.M.; Peck, J.; Srivastava, R.; Katsavelis, D.; Carson, A. An Open Source 3D-Printed Transitional Hand Prosthesis for Children.
}. Prosthet. Orthot. 2016, 28, 103-108. [CrossRef]
19. Zuniga, J.M.; Peck, J. L.; Srivastava, R.; Pierce, J.E.; Dudley, D.R.; Than, N.A.; Stergiou, N. Functional changes through the usage of 3D-printed transitional prostheses in children. Disabil. Rehabil. assist. Technol. 2017.1-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Mathiowetz, V.; Volland, G.; Kashman, N.; Weber, K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am. J. Occup. Ther. off. Publ. Am. Occup. Ther. Assoc. 1985, 39, 386-391. [CrossRef]
21. Mathiowetz, V; Wiemer, D.M.; Federman, S.M. Grip and pinch strength: Norms for 6- to 19-year-olds. Am. J. Occup. Ther. off. Publ. Am. Occup. Ther. Assoc. 1986, 40, 705-711. [CrossRef]
22. Dromerick, A.W.; Schabowsky, C.N.; Holley, R.J.; Monroe, B.; Markotic, A.; Lum, P.S. Effect of training on upper-extremity prosthetic performance and motor learning: A single-case study.
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2008, 89, 1199-1204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Demers, L.; Weiss-Lambrou, R.; Ska, B. Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assist. Technol. off. }. RESNA 2000, 12, 96-105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Patemo, L.; Ibrahimi, M.; Gruppioni, E.; Menciassi, A.; Ricotti, L. Sockets for Limb Prostheses: A Review of Existing Technologies and Open Challenges. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 65, 1996-2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Yamada, R.; Nozaki, K.; Horiuchi, N.; Yamashita, K.; Nemoto, R.; Miura, H.; Nagai, A. Ag nanoparticle-coated zirconia for antibacterial prosthesis. Mater. sci. Eng. cmater. Boil. Appl. 2017, 78, 1054-1060. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Brenner, C.D.; Brenner, J.K. The Use of Preparatory/Evaluation/Training Prostheses in Developing Evidenced-Based Practice in Upper Limb Prosthetics.
