Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to evaluate the material properties and dimensional accuracy of a MakerBot Replicator 2 desktop 3D printer. Design/methodology/approach – A design of experiments (DOE) test protocol was applied to determine the effect of the following variables on the material properties of 3D printed part: layer height, per cent infill and print orientation using a MakerBot Replicator 2 printer. Classical laminate plate theory was used to compare results from the DOE experiments with theoretically predicted elastic moduli for the tensile samples. Dimensional accuracy of test samples was also investigated. Findings – DOE results suggest that per cent infill has a significant effect on the longitudinal elastic modulus and ultimate strength of the test specimens, whereas print orientation and layer thickness fail to achieve significance. Dimensional analysis of test specimens shows that the test specimen varied significantly ( p < 0.05) from the nominal print dimensions. Practical implications – Although desktop 3D printers are an attractive manufacturing option to quickly produce functional components, this study suggests that users must be aware of this manufacturing process’ inherent limitations, especially for components requiring high geometric tolerance or specific material properties. Therefore, higher quality 3D printers and more detailed investigation into the MakerBot MakerWare printing settings are recommended if consistent material properties or geometries are required. Originality/value – Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a rapidly expanding manufacturing method. Initially, 3D printing was used for prototyping, but now this method is being used to create functional final products. In recent years, desktop 3D printers have become commercially available to academics and hobbyists as a means of rapid component manufacturing. Although these desktop printers are able to facilitate reduced manufacturing times, material costs and labor costs, relatively little literature exists to quantify the physical properties of the printed material as well as the dimensional consistency of the printing processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it