Evaluación de la capacidad de absorción de energía de impacto y dureza en probetas impresas en 3D de PLA y ABS con estructura cúbica y tri hexagonal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En la actualidad se construyen ortesis personalizadas para rehabilitación física mediante prototipado rápido 3D, debido a esto es de importancia conocer su resistencia mecánica, por esto se plantea ensayar probetas impresas en 3D con filamentos de PLA y ABS. Las probetas de estudio se diseñaron mediante software CAD, en función de la norma ASTM D256; después se imprimieron en 3D con estructura de relleno cúbica y tri hexagonal en materiales de PLA y ABS. Para el análisis de resistencia de las probetas se desarrolló varios ensayos: el ensayo de impacto con péndulo tipo Izod, microscopia de la superficie de rotura y el análisis de dureza SHORE D. En función de los resultados obtenidos se determinó que la probeta impresa en 3D con ABS ofrece mayor absorción de energía de impacto con respecto a la probeta de PLA; la estructura de relleno de la probeta que da mayor resistencia mecánica es la estructura cubica comparado con la estructura tri hexagonal. Además se determina que la dureza de la probeta de PLA es mayor que la probeta de ABS, finalmente se observó que la fractura de la probeta de PLA es lineal, mientras que la fractura de la probeta de ABS es tiene una forma de zigzag.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".