Flexural Properties of Lattices Fabricated with Planar and Curved Layered Fused Filament Fabrication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of curved layers in fused filament fabrication could lead to various advantages in surface finishing and mechanical properties. Here, the influence of three different structural and manufacturing parameters (volume fraction, raster arrangement, and the use of curved or planar layers) on the mechanical properties of lattice structures under three-point bending is studied. Two different raster arrangements were considered, i.e., those with rasters at planes parallel to the principal axes of the samples and those diagonally arranged, all at four different volume fractions. All different samples were additively manufactured using planar and curved layers. Samples were further dimensionally inspected to refine the computational models before their analysis via finite element simulations. The linear elastic region of the load-displacement curves was further analyzed numerically via finite element models. Predictions with finite element models resulted in good agreement with errors below 10%. Samples with diagonal rasters were 70% softer than those parallel to the principal axes.
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".