ArticlePolymers2024
Testing Protocol Development for the Fracture Toughness of Parts Built with Big Area Additive Manufacturing.
Article in Polymers, 2024. 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
Abstract
The mechanical testing of additively manufactured parts has largely relied on the existing standards developed for traditional manufacturing. While this approach leverages the investment made in current standards development, it inaccurately assumes that the mechanical response of additive manufacturing (AM) parts is identical to that of parts manufactured through traditional processes. When considering thermoplastic, material extrusion AM, the differences in response can be attributed to an AM part's inherent inhomogeneity caused by porosity, interlayer zones, and surface texture. Additionally, the interlayer bonding of parts printed with large-scale AM is difficult to adequately assess, as much testing is performed such that stress is distributed across many layer interfaces; therefore, the lack of AM-specific standards to assess interlayer bonding is a significant research gap. To quantify interlayer bonding via fracture toughness, double cantilever beam (DCB) testing has been used for some AM materials, and DCB has been generally used for a variety of materials including metal, wood, and laminates. Mode I DCB testing was performed on thermoplastic matrix composites printed with Big Area Additive Manufacturing (BAAM). Of particular interest was the notch shape and deflection speed during testing. The results examine the differences when using two notch types and three deflection speeds. The testing method introduced by the following paper differentiates itself from the ones described in the standards used by modernizing the methodology. This was conducted with the introduction of Digital Image Correlation (DIC) to gather displacement and load data simultaneously without human intervention.
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.