ArticleScientific reports2022
3D printed laboratory equipment to measure bulk materials in extreme conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Due to relatively new solutions in the field of 3D printing, there are few studies on the possibility of using printed elements in measuring devices. The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of using instruments made by material extrusion 3D printing method for measurement of selected mechanical-physical properties of bulk materials. Study explores the feasibility of measuring bulk material mechanical-physical properties when there are obstacles for printing original or modified measuring instruments in common practice. To achieve the goals a series of experiments such as Schulze's ring shear tests, Freeman's FT4 shear tests, compressibility tests, and Flow Rate and Stability tests were performed with use of original aluminium or steel made instruments and 3D printed instruments from polylactic acid and acrylic styrene acrylonitrile materials, using lunar regolith simulants LHS-1 and LMS-1 produced by CLASS Exolith Lab as a sample material. The results obtained from tests with original and printed instruments were then compared. The compared values of tests showed applicability of the 3D printed measuring instruments in a 5% range of measurement deviation. The biggest advantages of the 3D printed measuring instruments were the lower weight, the ability to print on the spot, to replace a damaged part with a new 3D printed part on-demand if extremely fast results are needed or due to the logistical unavailability, customization of the standardized tests for better understanding the behaviour of the particulate materials, and cheaper manufacturing 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.