Mathematical Modelling of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D Printing of Poly Vinyl Alcohol Parts through Statistical Design of Experiments Approach
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
This paper explores the 3D printing of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) using the fused deposition modeling (FDM) process by conducting statistical modeling and optimization. This study focuses on varying the infill percentage (10–50%) and patterns (Cubic, Gyroid, tri-hexagon and triangle, Grid) as input parameters for the response surface methodology (DOE) while measuring modulus, elongation at break, and weight as experimental responses. To determine the optimal parameters, a regression equation analysis was conducted to identify the most significant parameters. The results indicate that both input parameters significantly impact the output responses. The Design Expert software was utilized to create surface and residual plots, and the interaction between the two input parameters shows that increasing the infill percentage (IP) leads to printing heavier samples, while the patterns do not affect the weight of the parts due to close printing structures. On the contrary, the discrepancy between the predicted and actual responses for the optimal samples is below 15%. This level of error is deemed acceptable for the DOE experiments.
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) | 0.001 | 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