ArticlePolymers2026
Mechanical and Microstructural Response of FDM-Printed PETG and PETG+CF to Variable Infill Architecture and Lubricant Exposure.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fused deposition modelling/fused filament fabrication (FDM/FFF) enables rapid manufacturing of functional polymer components; however, the reliability of printed parts remains strongly governed by internal architecture, process-induced porosity, and exposure to service fluids. This study quantifies the combined influence of (i) infill pattern (linear, triangular, hexagonal) at 30% density, (ii) infill density (30%, 60%, 100%) for linear infill, and (iii) short-term lubricant exposure on the tensile and microstructural response of FDM-printed polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG) and short-carbon-fibre-reinforced PETG (PETG+CF). Specimens were printed following ISO 527-2 and tensile-tested at 5 mm/min. Microstructural analysis coupled quantitative porosity with mechanical response, Young's Modulus, and strain-to-break. At 30% density, PETG with hexagonal infill achieved the highest tensile strength (18.54 ± 0.67 MPa), exceeding linear (16.99 ± 0.52 MPa) and triangular (14.15 ± 0.70 MPa) patterns, while triangular and linear patterns exhibited higher Young's Modulus, indicating topology-driven decoupling of stiffness and strength. Increasing linear infill density raised strength to 31.35 ± 0.33 MPa (PETG) and 38.90 ± 0.28 MPa (PETG+CF) at 100%, consistent with reduced porosity. Seven-day immersion in SAE 15W-40 mineral engine oil reduced PETG strength by ~17% while increasing deformation to failure, whereas PETG+CF showed only minor changes. Overall, the results demonstrate that architecture-aware design, supported by quantitative porosity descriptors, is essential for ensuring the reliable mechanical performance of FDM/FFF-printed PETG-based components exposed to service fluids.
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.