Mathematical Modelling of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D Printing of Poly Vinyl Alcohol Parts through Statistical Design of Experiments Approach
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".