Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33907668›Full record

ArticleAdditive manufacturing2019

3D printing using powder melt extrusion.

Bret M Boyle, Panupoan T Xiong, Tara E Mensch, Timothy J Werder, Garret M Miyake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Additive manufacturing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Screw-assisted 3D printing with granulated materials: a systematic review.The International journal, advanced manufacturing technology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bret M BoyleDepartment of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Panupoan T XiongDepartment of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Tara E MenschDepartment of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Timothy J WerderDepartment of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Garret M MiyakeDepartment of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.

Funding

Organic Polymerization Catalysis: Precision Macromolecules for Recognition in Biological SystemsR35GM119702 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI MIYAKE, GARRET MORGAN · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM119702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additive manufacturing promises to revolutionize manufacturing industries. However, 3D printing of novel build materials is currently limited by constraints inherent to printer designs. In this work, a bench-top powder melt extrusion (PME) 3D printer head was designed and fabricated to print parts directly from powder-based materials rather than filament. The final design of the PME printer head evolved from the Rich Rap Universal Pellet Extruder (RRUPE) design and was realized through an iterative approach. The PME printer was made possible by modifications to the funnel shape, pressure applied to the extrudate by the auger, and hot end structure. Through comparison of parts printed with the PME printer with those from a commercially available fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D printer using common thermoplastics poly(lactide) (PLA), high impact poly (styrene) (HIPS), and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) powders (< 1 mm in diameter), evaluation of the printer performance was performed. For each build material, the PME printed objects show comparable viscoelastic properties by dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) to those of the FFF objects. However, due to a significant difference in printer resolution between PME (X-Y resolution of 0.8 mm and a Z-layer height calibrated to 0.1 mm) and FFF (X-Y resolution of 0.4 mm and a Z-layer height of 0.18 mm), as well as, an inherently more inconsistent feed of build material for PME than FFF, the resulting print quality, determined by a dimensional analysis and surface roughness comparisons, of the PME printed objects was lower than that of the FFF printed parts based on the print layer uniformity and structure. Further, due to the poorer print resolution and inherent inconsistent build material feed of the PME, the bulk tensile strength and Young's moduli of the objects printed by PME were lower and more inconsistent (49.2 ± 10.7 MPa and 1620 ± 375 MPa, respectively) than those of FFF printed objects (57.7 ± 2.31 MPa and 2160 ± 179 MPa, respectively). Nevertheless, PME print methods promise an opportunity to provide a platform on which it is possible to rapidly prototype a myriad of thermoplastic materials for 3D printing.

Indexed as

3D printingAdditive manufacturingExtrusion

Identifiers

PMID33907668
PMCPMC8074846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.