MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406928610 · doi:10.3390/jmmp9020037

Pellet-Based Extrusion Additive Manufacturing of Lightweight Parts Using Inflatable Hollow Extrudates

2025· article· en· W4406928610 on OpenAlexafffund
M Habib, Rawan Elsersawy, Mohammad Abu Hasan Khondoker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInflatablePelletExtrusionPlastics extrusionMaterials scienceComposite materialManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM) has become a key element of Industry 4.0, particularly the extrusion AM (EAM) of thermoplastic materials, which is recognized as the most widely used technology. Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), however, depends on expensive commercially available filaments, making pellet extruder-based EAM techniques more desirable. Large-format EAM systems could benefit from printing lightweight objects with reduced material use and lower power consumption by utilizing hollow rather than solid extrudates. In this study, a custom extruder head was designed and an EAM system capable of extruding inflatable hollow extrudates from a variety of materials was developed. By integrating a co-axial nozzle-needle system, a thermoplastic shell was extruded while creating a hollow core using pressurized nitrogen gas. This method allows for the production of objects with gradient part density and varied mechanical properties by controlling the inflation of the hollow extrudates. The effects of process parameters— such as extrusion temperature, extrusion speed, and gas pressure were investigated—using poly-lactic acid (PLA) and styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SEBS) pellets. The preliminary tests identified the optimal range of these parameters for consistent hollow extrudates. We then varied the parameters to determine their impact on the dimensions of the extrudates, supported by analyses of microscopic images taken with an optical microscope. Our findings reveal that pressure is the most influential factor affecting extrudate dimensions. In contrast, variations in temperature and extrusion speed had a relatively minor impact, whereas changes in pressure led to significant alterations in the extrudate’s size and shape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207