MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

4D printing and programming of continuous fibre-reinforced shape memory polymer composites

2024· article· en· W4393237921 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammadreza Lalegani Dezaki, Mahdi Bodaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Polymer Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPolylactic acidUltimate tensile strengthShape-memory polymerBendingComposite numberPolymerFlexural strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrates the use of fused filament fabrication (FFF) 4D printing (4DP) to print programmable continuous fibre-reinforced composite (CFRC) structures with exceptional strength and eco-friendly features. This research focuses on bio-shape memory polymer composites (SMPCs) and employs experiments to fabricate lightweight CFRC parts using FFF technology. Different types of continuous fibres, including carbon fibre (CF), aramid fibre (AF), and fibreglass (FG), are incorporated into a biopolymer matrix made of biodegradable polylactic acid (PLA). The study evaluates microstructure, mechanical properties, and shape memory properties of SMPCs, employing techniques like cold and hot programming. Continuous fibres significantly enhance mechanical properties, increasing strength by over 1027.5 % in tensile tests and nearly 497.3 % in three-point bending tests. The research also addresses shape recovery and fixity ratios in 4D-printed SMPCs, finding a decrease when continuous fibres are incorporated into PLA. Notably, FGPLA specimens achieve the highest shape recovery ratio of approximately 95 ± 1 % after pure PLA. These findings highlight the potential of 4D-printed CFRCs in various applications, from human-material interaction to mechanical and biomedical fields. They contribute to sustainability by reducing material consumption and waste, demonstrated through the creation of reusable and lightweight items like hooks, lockers, finger splints, and meta-composites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Polymer JournalSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207