MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323315493 · doi:10.3390/polym15051290

Energy Consumption Modeling of 3D-Printed Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Parts

2023· article· en· W4323315493 on OpenAlexafffund
Akash Shashikant Tiwari, Sheng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnergy consumptionMaterials scienceFused deposition modelingCarbon fiber reinforced polymerComposite materialAerospacePolymerMechanical engineeringNozzleDeposition (geology)Fiber3D printingProcess engineeringAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensionally printed carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (3DP-CFRP) has become an important contributor to commercialized additive manufacturing. Due to carbon fiber infills, the 3DP-CFRP parts can enjoy highly intricate geometry, enhanced part robustness, heat resistance, and mechanical properties. With the rapid growth of 3DP-CFRP parts in the aerospace, automobile, and consumer product sectors, evaluating and reducing their environmental impacts has become an urgent yet unexplored issue. To develop a quantitative measure of the environmental performance of 3DP-CFRP parts, this paper investigates the energy consumption behavior of a dual-nozzle fused deposition modeling (FDM) additive manufacturing process which includes melting and deposition of the CFRP filament. An energy consumption model for the melting stage is first defined using the heating model for non-crystalline polymers. Then, the energy consumption model for the deposition stage is established through the design of experiments approach and regression by investigating six influential parameters comprising the layer height, infill density, number of shells, travel speed of gantry, and speed of extruders 1 and 2. Finally, the energy consumption models are combined and experimentally tested with two different CFRP parts. The results show that the developed energy consumption model demonstrated over 94% accuracy in predicting the energy consumption behavior of 3DP-CFRP parts. The developed model could potentially be used to find a more sustainable CFRP design and process planning solution.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207