Prediction of tensile strength of fused deposition modeling (FDM) printed PLA using classic laminate theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is restricted due to limited information about the mechanical properties of printed parts. Therefore, it is required to determine the mechanical properties of the FDM properties to avail the full benefit of the FDM process. In the present study, Classic Laminate Theory (CLT) has been employed at the different configurations of layer thickness and raster width. The required elastic constant of material for CLT has been experimentally obtained through FDM printed Polylactic Acid (PLA) unidirectional specimens at 0°, 45° and 90° for different combinations of layer height and raster width. For these different combinations of layer height and raster width, constitutive models were developed to predict the tensile properties of the PLA parts. Tensile strength of the FDM printed bi-directional specimens has been experimentally obtained to validate the proposed CLT model results. The experimental tensile strength data is in good agreement with the data predicted by the proposed CLT model. Higher tensile strength and modulus were achieved with 0° raster angle compared to 90° raster angle. In the case of a bi-directional printed specimen, higher tensile strength was obtained with 45°/-45° raster angle followed by 30°/-60° and 0°/90° raster angle.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it