Correlation between Infill Percentages, Layer Width, and Mechanical Properties in Fused Deposition Modelling of Poly-Lactic Acid 3D Printing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of additive manufacturing (AM) has seen a transformation in the production of intricate and complex parts for various applications. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), among AM techniques, has garnered significant attention, particularly in fields like fibre-reinforced composites (FRC). In this study, the world of FDM-printed Polylactic Acid (PLA) components is explored, with a focus on how mechanical properties are influenced by infill percentages and layer widths. Through the utilisation of Response Surface Methodology (RSM), the optimisation of FDM-PLA 3D printing for a wide range of biomaterial applications is achieved, along with the unveiling of the potential for remarkable improvements in mechanical performance. Notably, a remarkable 91% reduction in surface roughness for PLA composites was achieved, accompanied by an impressive 25.6% and 34.1% enhancement in the tensile strength and Young’s modulus of fibre-reinforced PLA composites, respectively. This work, positioned at the crossroads of FDM, lays the groundwork for substantial advancements in the realm of additive manufacturing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".