MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587476454 · doi:10.1115/imece2016-65330

Design and Characterization of a Bi-Material Co-Extruder for Fused Deposition Modeling

2016· article· en· W2587476454 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Abu Hasan Khondoker, Dan Sameoto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlastics extrusionMaterials scienceCharacterization (materials science)ThermoplasticFused deposition modelingAcrylonitrile butadiene styrene3D printingPolylactic acidMixing (physics)ExtrusionComposite materialDeposition (geology)NozzlePolystyreneMaterial propertiesPolymerMechanical engineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is a popular style of additive manufacturing (AM) where a 3D object is fabricated by a molten material deposited into successive 2D layers. Multi-material 3D printing is particularly challenging due to poor adhesion between dissimilar plastics. The majority of currently available multi-material printers use separate nozzles for each material. Therefore, they are incapable of producing devices made of functionally gradient materials (FGM). FGM is a special class of engineering material exhibiting spatially inhomogeneous content, which tailors the material for specific functional and performance requirements. In this work, we present the design and characterization of a bi-material co-extruder system. This specialized extruder is capable of printing two thermoplastic materials through a single nozzle and is also capable of altering the composition of the deposited material while printing. It is also exceptional in that the internal structure of the hot end can be easily accessed and is a more adaptable design than previously reported co-extruders. The extruder was installed on a Geeetech PI3 Pro C printer. Then, some simple structures were printed using pairs of materials including polylactic acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high impact polystyrene (HIPS). Without any internal mixing features, the composition of the output (for instance, different colored PLA) was determined from microscopic images of cross-section of the extrudates.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207