3D printed multi-material polylactic acid (PLA) origami-inspired structures for quasi-static and impact applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Origami patterns can be used to inspire the designs of structural materials with beneficial properties, such as low strength-to-weight ratios. This study explores the design, manufacturing, and mechanical properties of three different origami-inspired shapes, as well as three different material combinations for each shape, through dynamic impact testing and quasi-static compression testing. The commonly studied Miura origami pattern will be compared to two uncommon patterns: a square-based pattern and a triangular-based pattern. The samples are 3D printed and the material combinations include one rigid and one flexible polylactic acid (PLA) sample, and one multi-material configuration with flexible PLA crease areas and rigid PLA origami faces. The rigid square sample was the most effective at absorbing a single drop-weight impact load and the flexible Miura pattern was most effective at absorbing impact loads when multiple drops were performed on the same sample. The rigid triangular structure withstood the highest loads during the quasi-static compression testing. A finite element model of the quasi-static compression test was built to enhance the analysis of the various tested configurations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".