MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586756477 · doi:10.1115/imece2016-67839

Performance of 3-D Printed Thermoplastic Polyurethane Under Quasi-Static and High-Strain Rate Loading

2016· article· en· W2586756477 on OpenAlexaff
Sarika Chaudhry, Maher Al-Dojayli, Aleksander Czekanski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)York University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBar (unit)Split-Hopkinson pressure barMaterials scienceComposite materialStrain rateStructural engineeringAcousticsMechanical engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As 3-D printed materials are being embraced by the manufacturing industries, understanding the response mechanism to high strain rate events becomes a concern to meet requirements for a specific application. In order to improve the mechanical performance of a 3-D printed part, it is necessary to quantify the impact of various printing parameters on the mechanical properties. Initial studies have shown that a difference in 3-D printed material is expected due to the effect of manufacturing parameters such as anisotropy relating to printing direction, infill pattern, infill percentage, layer height and orientation of the part being printed. The main focus of the study is to characterize the effect of the previously mentioned printing parameters under quasi-static and high strain rate (100–1000 /s). In this strain rate regime, the most common apparatus used is the Split Hopkinson pressure bar (also known as Kolsky bar). It consists of a cylindrical metallic bar that has a striker, input and output bar. While the specimen is fixated between the input and output bar, the striker bar is accelerated and triggers the incident bar. As a result, an elastic wave is generated which travels towards the specimen/input bar interface, where some part of it is reflected and the rest is transmitted. The Kolsky bar is adjusted by using a hollow transmitter tube and pulse shaper. Due to an impedance mismatch between the samples and bar material, the amplitude of the transmitted pulse is low. Using a hollow transmitter bar increases this amplitude due to area mismatch between the specimen and tube. Using a pulse shaper between the striker and input bar, the rise time of the elastic compressive wave increases and assists in achieving a constant rate of loading. The compressive stress strain curves were obtained under high strain rates to determine the strain rate effect. To measure the response under static testing conditions, a commercial load frame was used. A comprehensive comparison of dynamic compressive response of samples was performed to characterize the effect of printing parameters.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207