Influence of Infill Design in Fabrication of 3D-printed PLA Parts Using FDM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work examines the mechanical characteristics of polylactic acid (PLA) samples manufactured in 3D printing using various infill patterns. The infill patterns investigated are cuboid, grid, and octet, prepared at a constant infill density of 50 %. The study aimed to identify the most suitable infill pattern for specific mechanical requirements, considering tensile, compression, and flexural behaviour. Experimental testing was conducted on the 3D-printed PLA specimens to assess their mechanical performance. The findings reveal that the octet infill pattern showed the highest mechanical qualities across all three tests, including tensile, flexural, and compression evaluations, indicating improved strength and stability. The octet infill pattern samples had the highest tensile value of 17.3 MPa, maximum flexural stress of 35 MPa, and maximum compression stress of 34.4 MPa. These results emphasize the need to choose suitable infill patterns to adjust the mechanical properties of 3D-printed PLA components to meet particular application requirements.
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 | 0.000 | 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".