ArticlePloS one2024
A framework for fused deposition modelling process evaluation using multivariate process capability analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrated FDM optimization with multivariate capability analysis for dimensional and compressive mechanical properties.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
The rapid advancement of additive manufacturing (AM) requires researchers to keep up with these advancements by continually improving the AM processes. Improving manufacturing processes involves evaluating the process outputs and their conformity to the required specifications. Process capability indices, calculated using critical quality characteristics (QCs), have long been used in the evaluation process due to their proven effectiveness. AM processes typically involve multi-correlated critical QCs, indicating the need to develop a multivariate process capability index (MPCI) rather than a univariate capability index, which may lead to misleading results. In this regard, this study proposes a general methodological framework for evaluating AM processes using MPCI. The proposed framework starts by identifying the AM process and product design. Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is chosen for this investigation. Then, the specification limits associated with critical QCs are established. To ensure that the MPCI assumptions are met, the critical QCs data are examined for normality, stability, and correlation. Additionally, the MPCI is estimated by simulating a large sample using the properties of the collected QCs data and determining the percent of nonconforming (PNC). Furthermore, the FDM process and its capable tolerance limits are then assessed using the proposed MPCI. Finally, the study presents a sensitivity analysis of the FDM process and suggestions for improvement based on the analysis of assignable causes of variation. The results revealed that the considered process mean is shifted for all QCs, and the most variation is associated with part diameter data. Moreover, the process data are not normally distributed, and the proposed transformation algorithm performs well in reducing data skewness. Also, the performance of the FDM process according to different designations of specification limits was estimated. The results showed that the FDM process is incapable of different designs except with very coarse specifications.
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.