ArticlePolymers2023
Influence of 3D Microstructure Pattern and Infill Density on the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of PET-G Filaments.
Article in Polymers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Potential of 3D Printing in Thermal Insulating Composite Materials-Experimental Determination of the Impact of the Geometry on Thermal Resistance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the thermal and mechanical performances of PET-G thermoplastics with different 3D microstructure patterns and infill densities. The production costs were also estimated to identify the most cost-effective solution. A total of 12 infill patterns were analysed, including Gyroid, Grid, Hilbert curve, Line, Rectilinear, Stars, Triangles, 3D Honeycomb, Honeycomb, Concentric, Cubic, and Octagram spiral with a fixed infill density of 25%. Different infill densities ranging from 5% to 20% were also tested to determine the best geometries. Thermal tests were conducted in a hotbox test chamber and mechanical properties were evaluated using a series of three-point bending tests. The study used printing parameters to meet the construction sector's specific needs, including a larger nozzle diameter and printing speed. The internal microstructures led to variations of up to 70% in thermal performance and up to 300% in mechanical performance. For each geometry, the mechanical and thermal performance was highly correlated with the infill pattern, where higher infill improved thermal and mechanical performances. The economic performance showed that, in most cases, except for the Honeycomb and 3D Honeycomb, there were no significant cost differences between infill geometries. These findings can provide valuable insights for selecting the optimal 3D printing parameters in the construction industry.
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.