ArticlePolymers2025
Impact of Design Variations and Infill Density in 3D-Printed PLA Components.
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.
- Microstructure and Mechanical Performance of 3D-Printed Carbon Fibre-PLA-PHA Composites.Polymers · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
3D printing offers the ability to fabricate lightweight structural profiles with controlled infill and geometry. This study examines the mechanical behaviour of 3D-printed polylactic acid (PLA) structures with a 10% infill density under four load conditions (10, 15, 20, and 25 N). Four designs (M1, M2, M3, and M4), representing commonly used structural profiles found in beam and column applications, were analysed using ANSYS finite element simulations. Each design was evaluated under roller and nodal boundary conditions to study deformation, stress, and strain responses. Three-point flexural tests were also carried out on all four designs, and the measured peak flexural stress and apparent flexural modulus were compared with the simulated stiffness values. Both the simulations and experimental results showed that Design M3 exhibited the highest stiffness and more consistent behaviour compared to the other designs, while Design M4 showed higher deformation and lower bending resistance. Roller supports generally reduced deformation through better load distribution, whereas nodal supports increased local stiffness in selected designs. Although the magnitude of stiffness differed between simulation and experiment, the ranking of the designs remained consistent. Overall, the study confirms that the geometry plays an important role in their load-bearing performance, and the numerical model provides a reliable tool for comparing and selecting suitable designs before fabrication.
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.