Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37835977›Full record

ArticlePolymers2023

Delamination Strength Comparison of Additively Manufactured Composite Curved Beams Using Continuous Fibers.

Sedat Süsler, Zafer Kazancı

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sedat SüslerFaculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kocaeli University, Kartepe 41285, Kocaeli, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-5947-8231
Zafer KazancıAdvanced Composites Research Group, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2127-8389

Funding

Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey 1059B192101073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to show the applicability of various 3D-printed composite curved beams using continuous fibers and their delamination strength when they are subjected to bending loading. Four-point bending tests are configured for comparative research on evaluating the effect of fiber types on the delamination strength and failure mode. Out-of-plane tensile properties are calculated analytically by using experimental data. The number of curved beams per build during multiple printing is examined to observe the effect of delay time between each deposited layer of parts. Macro-scale finite element simulations including surface-based cohesive concept for the selected 3D-printed composite curved beam design are also presented and compared. The analytical results show that carbon fiber reinforced curved beam design is superior to the other fiber types by at least 18% in the interlaminar tensile strength and is relatively challenging against the conventionally manufactured composite curved beams in the literature despite its low fiber volume ratio. There is no gross effect of delay time between each deposited layer of parts, although printing a single sample is favorable for better strength. There is a presence of compatibility between the analytical and numerical results as the percentage difference for maximum load, radial tensile strength and maximum displacement are found as 1.8%, 2.4% and 1.5%, respectively, in a 3D cohesive model. A 2D cohesive model offers a fast solution and a competitive agreement with test results when the 2D and 3D finite element models are compared.

Indexed as

additive manufacturingcontinuous fibercontinuous filament fabricationcurved beamdelaminationfour-point bending

Identifiers

PMID37835977
PMCPMC10575076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.