ArticlePolymers2025
Enhanced Energy Absorption and Flexural Performance of 3D Printed Sandwich Panels Using Slicer-Generated Interlocking Interfaces.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed the effect of slicer-made interlocking joints on 3D printed sandwich panels manufactured through fused filament fabrication (FFF) in terms of flexural properties and energy absorption. Composites were prepared with thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) as the core material and polyamide (PA), polylactic acid (PLA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as skin materials for each of the three composites, respectively. In order to assess the implications of internal geometry, 3D printing was done on five infill topologies (Cross-3D, Grid, Gyroid, Line and Honeycomb) at 20% density. All samples had 20% core density and underwent three point bending testing for flexural testing. It was noted that the Grid and Gyroid cores had the best performance in terms of maximum load capacity based on stretch-dominated behavior while Cross-3D and Honeycomb had lower strengths but stable moments during the bending process. Since Cross-3D topology offered the lowest deflection, it was selected for further experiments with slicer added interlocks at the face-core interface. This study revealed the most notable improvements as gains of up to 15% in peak load, 48% in maximum deflection, and 51% in energy absorption compared with the non-interlocked designs. The PET/TPU interlocked demonstrated the best performance in terms of the energy absorption (2.45 J/mm
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.