MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006775572 · doi:10.3390/app10041400

A Design and Fabrication Method for Wood-Inspired Composites by Micro X-Ray Computed Tomography and 3D Printing

2020· article· en· W3006775572 on OpenAlexaff
Yubo Tao, Zelong Li, Peng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnisotropy3D printingMaterials scienceComposite materialTomographyFabricationComputer sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developments in 3D printing and CT scanning technologies have facilitated the imitation of natural wood structures. However, creating composites from the elementary features of anisotropic wood structures remains a new frontier. This paper aims to investigate the potential of constructing and 3D printing mechanically customizable composites by combining anisotropic elementary models reconstructed from the micro X-ray computed tomography (μ-CT) scanning of wood. In this study, an arbitrary region of interest selected from the μ-CT scanning of a sample of Manchurian walnut (Juglans mandshurica) was reconstructed into isosurfaces that constituted the 3D model of an elementary model. Elementary models were combined to form the wood-inspired composites in various arrangements. The surface and interior structures of the elementary model were found to be customizable through adjusting the image Threshold and Surface Quality Factors during 3D volume reconstruction. Compressional simulations and experiments performed on the elementary model (digital and 3D printed) revealed that its compressive behavior was wood-like and anisotropic. Numerical analysis established a preliminary link between the arrangements of elementary models and the compressive stiffness of respective composites, showing that it is possible to control the compressive behaviors of the composites through the design of specific elementary model arrangements.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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