MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410923789 · doi:10.1002/pen.27288

Triaxial Analysis of Mechanical Properties in Additively Manufactured Layered Material

2025· article· en· W4410923789 on OpenAlexaff
Ghoulem Ifrene, Richard Schultz, Prasad Pothana, Neal Nagel, Kuldeep Singh, Sven Egenhoff

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersNorth Dakota Industrial Commission
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing offers unprecedented opportunities for creating tailored materials with complex geometries. This study quantifies the impact of layer thickness and orientation on the mechanical and acoustic properties of SLA‐printed materials under triaxial stress conditions, a critical yet understudied area. We fabricated models with layer dip angles of 0°, 45°, and 90°, and layer thicknesses of 25, 100, and 160 μm. These samples underwent triaxial compression testing and ultrasonic elastic wave velocity measurements using an Autolab 1500 triaxial load frame. Our findings reveal significant anisotropy in the mechanical properties of the 3D‐printed samples, with up to a 30% increase in uniaxial compressive strength for 45° oriented samples. Additionally, we uncover a novel relationship between layer parameters and acoustic properties, enabling nondestructive quality assessment of 3D‐printed components. This research provides a comprehensive framework for enhancing the performance of 3D‐printed materials in high‐stress applications, with critical insights into the behavior of SLA‐printed materials under complex stress states, useful for aerospace, geomechanics, and biomedical engineering applications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer Engineering and ScienceSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207