ArticlePolymers2024
Impact of Cell Design Parameters on Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Cores for Carbon Epoxy Sandwich Composites.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of 3D printing technology has broadened manufacturing possibilities, allowing the production of complex cellular geometries, including auxetic and curved plane structures, beyond the standard honeycomb patterns in sandwich composite materials. In this study, the effects of cell design parameters, such as cell geometry (honeycomb and auxetic) and cell size (cell thickness and width), are examined on acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) core materials produced using fusion deposition modeling (FDM). They are produced as a result of the epoxy bonding of carbon epoxy prepreg composite materials to the surfaces of core materials. Increasing the wall thickness from 0.6 mm to 1 mm doubled the elastic modulus of the re-entrant structures (5 GPa to 10 GPa) and improved compressive strength by 50-60% for both geometries. In contrast, increasing cell size from 6 mm to 10 mm significantly reduced compressive strength by 80% (from 2.5-2.8 MPa to 0.5-0.6 MPa) and elastic modulus by 70-78% (from 9-10 GPa to 2-3 GPa). Flexural testing showed that the re-entrant cores, with a maximum load capacity of 148 N, exhibited more uniform deformation, while the honeycomb cores achieved a higher load capacity of 273 N but were prone to localized failures. These findings emphasize the directional anisotropy and specific advantages of auxetic and honeycomb designs, offering valuable insights for lightweight, high-strength structural 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.