MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308808792 · doi:10.46519/ij3dptdi.1098903

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF DELAMINATION DEFECT AT MATERIALS OF POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PET)PRODUCED BY ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ON FLEXURAL RESISTANCE

2022· article· en· W4308808792 on OpenAlexaff
Alperen Doğru, Ayberk Sözen, Gökdeniz Neşer, M. Özgür Seydibeyoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyethylene terephthalateMaterials scienceFlexural strengthComposite materialDelamination (geology)Layer (electronics)PolyethylenePolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material, which is widely used in the packaging industry due to its thermal and mechanical properties, high chemical resistance, and low gas permeability, is among the most widely used polymer materials in the world. These properties have made their use in additive manufacturing methods widespread. Determining how some common additive manufacturing defects affect the products produced by these methods will increase the adoption of these technologies in the final product production. In this study, the investigation of the effect of layer non-joining defect called delamination on the impact strength of PET material produced by additive manufacturing method at different layer thicknesses was carried out experimentally and numerically. The effects to flexural stress on the artificially created layer adhesion defect on the middle layers of the parts produced and modeled with a layer thickness of 0.1/0.2/0.3mm were investigated. It has been observed that the increase in layer thickness decreases flexural strength. In addition, while the flexural strength of the specimens containing delamination decreased, the increase in layer thickness accelerated this decrease.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital IndustrySame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207