ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
A Comparative Analysis of Selected Methods for Determining Young's Modulus in Polylactic Acid Samples Manufactured with the FDM Method.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determination of Dynamic Elastic Properties of 3D-Printed Nylon 12CF Using Impulse Excitation of Vibration.Polymers · 2025Article
- The Analysis of Mechanical Properties and Geometric Accuracy in Specimens Printed in Material Jetting Technology.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare three methods for determining the Young's modulus of polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) samples. The samples were manufactured viathe fused filament fabrication/fused deposition modeling (FFF/FDM) 3D printing technique. Samples for analysis were obtained at processing temperatures of 180 °C to 230 °C. Measurements were performed with the use of two nondestructive techniques: the impulse excitation technique (IET) and the ultrasonic (US) method. The results were compared with values obtained in static tensile tests (STT), which ranged from 2.06 ± 0.03 to 2.15 ± 0.05 GPa. Similar changes in Young's modulus were observed in response to the processing temperatures of the compared methods. The values generated by the US method were closer to the results of the STT, but still diverged considerably, and the error exceeded 10% in all cases. Based on the present findings, it might be concluded that the results of destructive and nondestructive tests differ by approximately 1 GPa.
Indexed as
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.