ArticlePolymers2026
Comparative Analysis of AWJM Performance in FFF-Printed PLA and PLA-CF: Influence of Process Parameters and Cutting Regions.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Additive manufacturing by Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) enables the fabrication of complex polymer components, although limitations in surface quality and dimensional accuracy often require post-processing. Abrasive water jet machining (AWJM) is a non-thermal technique suitable for improving surface integrity in polymers and composites without inducing thermal damage. This study investigates the AWJM performance on FFF-printed polylactic acid (PLA) and carbon-fiber-reinforced PLA (PLA-CF), focusing on the influence of water pressure (WP), traverse feed rate (TFR), and abrasive mass flow rate (AMFR). A full factorial design was implemented, and surface integrity was evaluated through surface roughness (Ra) and kerf taper (T), considering their variation across characteristic cutting regions: initial damage region (IDR), smooth cutting region (SCR), and rough cutting region (RCR). Results show that WP and TFR are the dominant parameters, while AMFR has a limited effect within the studied range. The SCR exhibits the lowest roughness, whereas the RCR shows significant degradation due to energy loss. Both materials present similar behavior, with only minor improvements in PLA-CF. ANOVA confirms that process parameters have a stronger influence than material type, providing useful criteria for AWJM optimization in FFF polymers.
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.