2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101335
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3D printing of clay for decorative architectural applications: Effect of solids volume fraction on rheology and printability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
60
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
60
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Solid symbols depict inks which could print lattices with distinguishable filaments and voids, while hollow symbols depict inks which printed filaments that slump and lose CAD‐designed voids. Circles are data from this work on alumina emulsions, while squares are data on traditional throwing clay and water pastes 34 . The diagonal dashed line indicates a possible printability boundary separating printable from unprintable inks, as per Equation ().…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Solid symbols depict inks which could print lattices with distinguishable filaments and voids, while hollow symbols depict inks which printed filaments that slump and lose CAD‐designed voids. Circles are data from this work on alumina emulsions, while squares are data on traditional throwing clay and water pastes 34 . The diagonal dashed line indicates a possible printability boundary separating printable from unprintable inks, as per Equation ().…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We hypothesize that the product of storage modulus and yield stress must exceed a critical value to avoid slumping as indicated by the diagonal dashed line in Figure 4A. In our earlier work on clay paste printing 34 we proposed that the relationship can be expressed as follows:G=C1τy,where C 1 is a constant. In this work, we can further refine C 1 to be approximately 5 × 10 6 as per the linear discriminant function which placed 91.8% of observations in the right groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations