Effects of Infill Pattern on the Tensile Properties of 3D Printed Dog Bone Coupon Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is an additive manufacturing (AM) process in which meltable materials are fed into a print core, then melted and extruded on a printing plate. The infill pattern via AM has, no doubt, an impact on the mechanical properties of printed specimens, but the studies on this topic are limited. This study was aimed to examine the effects of infill patterns on the tensile properties of 3D printed dog-bone coupon specimens made using a desktop FDM 3D printer. Tensile specimens were designed using AutoCAD and SketchUp and made using an Ultimaker 3D printer. Five infill patterns set to 'lines' with different line direction angles (namely 0, 30, 45, 60, and 90) and one infill pattern set to 'grid' were employed to print the specimens using polylactic acid (PLA) filament. In addition, one 'line' pattern from the above five was selected to make a group of specimens using wood-based PLA filament as the control. Tensile tests were conducted to measure the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and modulus of elasticity (MOE) of the printed specimens. It was found that tensile properties increased with an increase in the line direction angle, with the maximum UTS and MOE appearing in the line pattern with a 90 infill line direction. It was also discovered that the woodbased PLA filament had a UTS of 11.66 MPa and an MOE of 330 MPa, which were 25.8% and 25.2% lower than those made of pure PLA filament using the 90-degree lines pattern.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".