ArticlePolymers2022
Fused Deposition Modeling Parameter Optimization for Cost-Effective Metal Part Printing.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of Select Printing Parameters for Low-Cost Fused Deposition Modeling Printed Cast Iron Through Experimental Optimization.3D printing and additive manufacturing · 2024Article
- Additive Manufacturing Using Agriculturally Derived Biowastes: A Systematic Literature Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Numerical and Experimental Study of a Lattice Structure for Orthopedic Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Fused Filament Fabrication of Alumina/Polymer Filaments for Obtaining Ceramic Parts after Debinding and Sintering Processes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metal 3D-printed parts are critical in industries such as biomedical, surgery, and prosthetics to create tailored components for patients, but the costs associated with traditional metal additive manufacturing (AM) techniques are typically prohibitive. To overcome this disadvantage, more cost-effective manufacturing processes are needed, and a good approach is to combine fused deposition modeling (FDM) with debinding-sintering processes. Furthermore, optimizing the printing parameters is required to improve material density and mechanical performance. The design of experiment (DoE) technique was used to evaluate the impact of three printing factors, namely nozzle temperature, layer thickness, and flow rate, on the tensile and bending properties of sintered 316L stainless steel in this study. Green and sintered samples were morphologically and physically characterized after printing, and the optimal printing settings were determined by statistical analysis, which included the surface response technique. The mechanical properties of the specimens increased as the flow rate and layer thickness increased and the nozzle temperature decreased. The optimized printing parameters for the ranges used in this study include 110% flow rate, 140 μm layer thickness, and 240 °C nozzle temperature, which resulted in sintered parts with a tensile strength of 513 MPa and an elongation at break of about 60%.
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.