Processability Assessment of HDPE/UHMWPE Blends for Fused Deposition Modeling Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is highly regarded for its superior mechanical properties, chemical resistance, and biocompatibility. However, its extremely high melt viscosity inhibits direct use in extrusion-based additive manufacturing techniques like fused deposition modeling (FDM). This study explores enhancing the processability and FDM compatibility of UHMWPE by blending it with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene glycol (PEG). Three formulations were assessed: neat HDPE, a 70:30 (w/w) binary HDPE/UHMWPE blend, and a ternary blend of HDPE/UHMWPE/PEG at 60:30:10 (w/w/w). Consistent with prior literature, pure HDPE displayed stable extrusion and excellent filament quality facilitating high-fidelity prints. The binary blend allowed filament formation but showed rough surface morphology and compromised print quality due to poor miscibility, echoing similar challenges reported in polymer blend studies. The ternary blend, intended to improve melt flow via PEG plasticization, resulted in erratic filament diameter and unreliable extrusion, highlighting the delicate balance needed in additive incorporation. These outcomes confirm that HDPE incorporation improves UHMWPE extrusion capabilities; however, advanced compatibilization techniques and refined processing, such as twin-screw extrusion, remain essential for achieving dependable FDM performance. The findings offer critical insights for designing UHMWPE-based filaments tailored for biomedical and industrial additive manufacturing 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".