ArticlePolymers2025
Advanced Thermal Protection Systems Enabled by Additive Manufacturing of Hybrid Thermoplastic Composites.
Article in Polymers, 2025. 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.
- High-Silica Fiber Felt/TiPolymers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates seven advanced hybrid composite thermal protection system (TPS) prototypes, featuring an innovative internal air chamber design that reduces heat conduction and enhances overall thermal protection performance. Specimens were manufactured by fused deposition modeling (FDM), an additive manufacturing technique, using a fire-retardant thermoplastic. Selected configurations were reinforced with continuous carbon or glass fibers, coated with ceramic surface layer, or hybridized with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) layers or a CFRP laminate disk. To validate performance, a harsh oxy-acetylene torch (OAT) protocol was implemented, deliberately designed to exceed the severity of most reported typical ablative assessments. The exposed surface of each specimen was subjected to direct flame at a 50 mm distance, recording peak temperatures of 1600 ± 50 °C. Two samples of each configuration were tested under 60 and 90 s exposures. Back-face thermal readings at potential payload sites consistently remained below 85 °C, well under the 200 °C maximum standard threshold for TPS applications. Several configurations preserved structural integrity despite the extreme environment. Prototypes 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate the most favorable performance, maintaining structural integrity and low back-face temperatures despite substantial thickness loss. By contrast, specimen 6.2 exhibited rapid degradation following 60 s of exposure, which served as a rigorous and selective early-stage screening tool for evaluating polymer-based ablative TPS architectures.
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.