Experimental and Numerical Investigation on the Free Vibration Characteristics of 3D Printed Springs with Square Cross Sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, a spring with a square cross-section was fabricated utilizing 3D printing technology.An extensive examination of the free vibration characteristics of these printed springs was carried out, both experimentally and numerically.Three distinct infill patterns (Octet, Triangle, and Cross), three varying infill percentages (50%, 60%, and 80%), and three different numbers of coils (one, two, and four coils) were scrutinized.Furthermore, an additional three samples, each exhibiting 100% infill with the Octet pattern, were printed to represent the solid model of the spring, each having one, two, and four coils respectively.The stiffness, shear modulus, and material density of the fabricated springs were computed experimentally.Subsequently, springs with different configurations were modeled and subjected to analysis using SolidWorks 2018.The results reveal that for the case with 100% infill, the spring stiffness amplifies fourfold and sixteen fold respectively for two and four coils, when compared with the one-coil printed spring.Simultaneously, the fundamental frequency exhibited a twofold and fourfold increase respectively.Springs fabricated with an 80% Octet pattern exhibited a higher fundamental frequency than those printed with Triangle or Cross patterns.This study, therefore, provides valuable insights into the influence of infill patterns, infill percentages, and coil numbers on the vibration characteristics of 3D printed springs.
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".