Article3D printing and additive manufacturing2023
Design and Validation of Additively Manufactured Injection Molds.
Article in 3D printing and additive manufacturing, 2023. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The injection molding process is only economical with large batch sizes due to expensive tools that cannot be used variably. Additively manufactured tools made of plastic could reduce manufacturing costs and represent an alternative to conventionally manufactured tools for prototype applications as well as enabling small series with the injection molding process. The aim of this article was to examine additively manufactured injection molding tools; to determine their potential in terms of service life, surface quality, and production time; and to link them with the production costs so that the profitability can be assessed. Therefore, a reference component and an injection mold have been designed. To test the capabilities of different 3D printing techniques and materials, three molds have been produced by fused filament fabrication (FFF), one by PolyJet process, one by digital light processing, and for a direct comparison to conventional methods, one mold has been milled from aluminum. All molds have been tested in two series. First, they were used under the same conditions over a period of 100 injection molding cycles. Based on the knowledge obtained and an additional profitability analysis, three forms could be identified as promising. Two of these forms could be further investigated in a second series of tests. Based on all experiments, the technical feasibility of additively manufactured injection molds for small batch production could be confirmed. It could be evaluated that each manufacturing process and every material has some advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, temperature-resistant thermoplastics can be processed with FFF, which can withstand service lives of more than 150 cycles without any signs of wear and are therefore suitable for small series. On the other hand, the PolyJet process achieves good surface qualities and short production times, which means that it can be used for prototype applications.
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.