The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition
Abstract
Abstract Commercial solid freeform fabrication (SFF) systems, which have been developed for fabrication of wax and polymer parts for form and fit and secondary applications, such as moulds for casting, etc., require further improvements for use in direct processing of structural ceramic and metal parts. Defects, both surface as well as internal, are undesirable in SFF processed ceramic and metal parts for structural and functional applications. Process improvements are needed before any SFF technique can successfully be commercialized for structural ceramic and metal processing. Describes process improvements made in new SFF techniques, called fused deposition of ceramics (FDC) and metals (FDMet), for fabrication of structural and functional ceramic and metal parts. They are based on an existing SFF technique, fused deposition modelling (FDM) and use commercial FDM systems. The current state of SFF technology and commercial FDM systems results in parts with several surface and internal defects which, if not eliminated, severely limit the structural properties of ceramic and metal parts thus produced. Describes systematically, in detail, the nature of these defects and their origins. Discusses several novel strategies for elimination of most of these defects. Shows how some of these strategies have successfully been implemented to result in ceramic parts with structural properties comparable to those obtained in conventionally processed ceramics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
3D printing of ceramics: A review
Chen, Z., Li, Z., Li, J., Liu, C., Lao, C., Fu, Y., Liu, C., Li, Y., Wang, P., & He, Y. (2019) · Journal of the European Ceramic Society · doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2018.11.013 · Cited by 2,109
A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling
N. Turner, B., Strong, R., & A. Gold, S. (2014) · Rapid Prototyping Journal · doi:10.1108/rpj-01-2013-0012 · Cited by 1,450
Additive manufacturing methods and modelling approaches: a critical review
Bikas, H., Stavropoulos, P., & Chryssolouris, G. (2016) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2 · Cited by 1,427
Recent Advances in Analytical Chemistry by 3D Printing
Gross, B., Lockwood, S. Y., & Spence, D. M. (2017) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b04344 · Cited by 359
A review on quality control in additive manufacturing
Kim, H., Lin, Y., & Tseng, T.-L. B. (2018) · Rapid Prototyping Journal · doi:10.1108/rpj-03-2017-0048 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Agarwala, M. K., Jamalabad, V. R., Langrana, N. A., Safari, A., Whalen, P. J., & Danforth, S. C.
- Venue
- Rapid Prototyping Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 4-19
- ISSN
- 1355-2546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966517766
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13552549610732034
- The paper
- Agarwala, M. K., Jamalabad, V. R., Langrana, N. A., Safari, A., Whalen, P. J., & Danforth, S. C. (1996). Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition. Rapid Prototyping Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552549610732034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.