Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39940604›Full record

ArticlePolymers2025

Effect of Geometry and Size on Additively Manufactured Short-Fiber Carbon-Nylon Composite Under Tensile Loading.

András Kámán, Armand Meszlényi, Miklós Jakab, András Kovács, Attila Egedy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

András KámánDepartment of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, 8200 Veszprém, Hungary.
Armand MeszlényiDepartment of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, 8200 Veszprém, Hungary.
Miklós JakabDepartment of Material Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, 8200 Veszprém, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-1318-254X
András KovácsDepartment of Material Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, 8200 Veszprém, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-6173-7634
Attila EgedyDepartment of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, 8200 Veszprém, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-7964-1924

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the articles relating to the study of 3D printing processes are picking up pace, the question of comparability and repeatability based on the geometry and size of the specimens arises, based on the fact that the widely used extrusion 3D printing processes inherently have a structure that is made up of extruded lines of various shapes and sizes. This study aimed to determine the impact the specimen geometry and size have on the final tensile strength. One of the most widely used engineering materials, chopped carbon-fiber-reinforced nylon was used for this study. The four main specimen groups examined were specimens containing only walls and specimens containing only infill printed with both a 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm nozzle (to determine that the size of the extrusion lines has any effect on the tensile strength with different specimen sizes) achieving a solid body with two different line structures. Contradictory to the initial expectations, the tests showed that the geometry and size of the specimens had not influenced the tensile strength of the specimens in any of the four specimen groups. However, the tests showed that the groups containing only walls were always stronger than their only-infill counterparts and the groups printed with a 0.4 mm nozzle were stronger than the groups printed with a 0.8 mm nozzle.

Indexed as

3D printingCT scannylon compositesspecimen geometrytensile strength

Identifiers

PMID39940604
PMCPMC11820323

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.