ArticleACS omega2020
Three-Dimensional Printed Lightweight Composite Foams.
Article in ACS omega, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of 3D printed longitudinal Flatfoot pads with lattice structures using various microfoaming filament.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Printability Metrics and Engineering Response of HDPE/SiNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Physical, Thermal, and Chemical Properties of Fly Ash Cenospheres Obtained from Different Sources.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Foam 3D Printing of Thermoplastics: A Symbiosis of Additive Manufacturing and Foaming Technology.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Porous PLAs with Controllable Density by FDM 3D Printing and Chemical Foaming Agent.Micromachines · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to enable three-dimensional (3D) printed lightweight composite foams by blending hollow glass microballoons (GMBs) with high density polyethylene (HDPE). To that end, lightweight feedstock for printing syntactic foam composites is developed. The blend for this is prepared by varying the GMB content (20, 40, and 60 volume %) in HDPE for filament extrusion, which is subsequently used for 3D printing. The rheological properties and the melt flow index (MFI) of blends are investigated for identifying suitable printing parameters. It is observed that the storage and loss modulus, as well as complex viscosity, increase with increasing GMB content, whereas MFI decreases. Further, the coefficient of thermal expansion of HDPE and foam filaments decreases with increasing GMB content, thereby lowering the thermal stresses in prints, which promotes the reduction in warpage. The mechanical properties of filaments are determined by subjecting them to tensile tests, whereas 3D printed samples are tested under tensile and flexure tests. The tensile modulus of the filament increases with increasing GMB content (8-47%) as compared to HDPE and exhibit comparable filament strength. 3D printed foams show a higher specific tensile and flexural modulus as compared to neat HDPE, making them suitable candidate materials for weight-sensitive applications. HDPE having 60% by volume GMB exhibited the highest modulus and is 48.02% higher than the printed HDPE. Finally, the property map reveals a higher modulus and comparable strength against injection- and compression-molded foams. Printed foam registered 1.8 times higher modulus than the molded samples. Hence, 3D printed foams have the potential for replacing components processed through conventional manufacturing processes that have limitations on geometrically complex designs, lead time, and associated costs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.