Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Rapid Manufacturing of Lightweight Drone Frames Using Single-Tow Architected Composites

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a drone frame made from one continuous carbon-fiber tow wound into an FCC lattice by 3DFiT is 4-8 times stronger per weight than metal and thermoplastic 3D-printed frames.

desk verdict A legitimate application demo of an already-published method, but the headline numbers outrun the evidence — most importantly because the paper never says whether the ABS scaffold is removed after curing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09024 v1 pith:UB2AU6RU submitted 2025-09-10 cs.RO physics.app-ph

Md Habib Ullah Khan , Kaiyue Deng , Ismail Mujtaba Khan , Kelvin Fu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROphysics.app-ph
keywords droneframescontinuousfibercompositesFCClattice3DTethering(3DFiT)specificflexuralstrengthunibodycompositemanufacturingdroptestingcarbonepoxy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a quadcopter frame can be manufactured as a one-piece composite lattice rather than assembled from separate arms, plates, and fasteners. The fabrication method, 3D Fiber Tethering, winds a single epoxy-impregnated carbon-fiber tow around a scaffold of anchor nodes, producing a Face-Centered Cubic lattice frame that weighs 260 g and is 10% lighter than the DJI F450. The authors report a specific flexural strength of 760 MPa per g per cubic centimeter, roughly four to eight times that of additively manufactured metal and thermoplastic parts, and a deposition speed 50-100 times faster than typical continuous-fiber 3D printing. They also show the frame survives a 100-meter drop with no visible damage and fails at 150 meters. If these results hold, the approach offers a scalable route to lightweight, joint-free composite airframes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) lattice unit cell, and the enabling fabrication mechanism is 3D Fiber Tethering (3DFiT). In 3DFiT, a robot winds one continuous epoxy-wetted carbon-fiber tow around anchor nodes on a modular scaffold, so fibers run in multiple directions, including out of plane, and follow principal stress trajectories. After thermal curing, the structure is a monolith; the FCC cell distributes load among struts at 8.75% solid volume fraction, and the continuous tow eliminates fiber ends and interlaminar interfaces.

What would settle it

Weigh a cured arm or the full frame and compare it with the mass of the deposited fiber plus epoxy predicted from the 31.2% fiber volume fraction and the 29.13 g composite arm measurement; a substantial mass excess would indicate embedded ABS scaffold contributes to the reported weight and strength.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single continuous tow of carbon fiber, deposited in three dimensions by the 3DFiT process onto a scaffold of anchor nodes, can form an entire drone frame as a monolithic FCC lattice. The architecture uses a solid volume fraction of 8.75% and a fiber volume fraction of 31.2%, redirecting loads along continuous fibers so the unibody frame carries load without joints or fasteners. Mechanical testing gives a peak flexural load of 1450 N and a specific flexural strength of 760 MPa per gram per cubic centimeter, which the paper compares favorably with metal and thermoplastic additive manufacturing; drop testing sets a failure threshold between 255.1 J and 382.6 J.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the 260 g frame and its mechanical properties are entirely due to the carbon-fiber and epoxy composite, but the paper describes the ABS scaffold as the foundational framework or core and never states that it is removed after curing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unibody construction removes bolted joints and fasteners, eliminating the stress concentrations that typically limit assembled drone frames.
  • A deposition speed of 50-100 mm/s, compared with 1-2 mm/s for continuous-fiber 3D printing, makes the process practical for full-frame production in about two hours.
  • The 260 g frame, 10% lighter than a DJI F450, is credited with extending flight time by three minutes on a drone with 1108 g takeoff weight.
  • The frame survives a 100 m drop (255.1 J) with no visible damage; failure at 150 m (382.6 J) localizes at tethered fiber junctions, indicating the critical impact-energy threshold.
  • Specific flexural strength of 760 MPa/(g/cm3) places the lattice frame well above reported values for 3D-printed thermoplastics and metals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct consequence the authors do not quantify: the same scaffold-and-tow process should be reusable across different lattice unit cells, so BCC, octet, or graded lattices could be fabricated without new tooling; testing those against FCC would map the design space.
  • The three-minute flight-time gain is an end-to-end system result, not a frame-only number; whether it transfers to other payloads and batteries depends on the total mass budget, so a useful extension would be to report hover endurance with and without the frame swap.
  • The 4-8 times specific-strength comparison is based on flexural tests of beam-like specimens; frame-level stiffness, torsional rigidity, and crash behavior could differ, so a whole-frame bending/torsion test would make the comparison more complete.
  • Because the scaffold brackets are described as the foundational framework or core, an independent measurement of the cured frame's mass versus the deposited composite mass would clarify whether the 260 g figure includes residual ABS; this is testable but not reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a manufacturing demonstration of a lightweight quadcopter frame produced by 3D Fiber Tethering (3DFiT), in which a single continuous carbon-fiber tow impregnated with epoxy is robotically deposited around an ABS scaffold and cured to form an FCC-inspired lattice unibody. The authors claim a 260 g frame that is 10% lighter than a DJI F450 frame, a specific flexural strength of 760 MPa/g/cm³, a peak flexural load of 1450 N, a specific strength four to eight times that of additively manufactured metals and thermoplastics, and an associated three-minute flight-time extension. The paper includes three-point-bend testing of a drone arm, load-bearing demonstration, and drop tests at 100 m and 150 m.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, 3DFiT would be a meaningful advance: it addresses the layer-wise fiber-orientation limit of conventional composite 3D printing, enables continuous-fiber lattice geometries, and could be scalable because deposition is reported at 50–100 mm/s. Concrete strengths of the paper are the full-scale prototype fabrication, quantitative flexural and drop-test data, and SEM-based failure analysis, which go beyond a purely conceptual proposal. However, several headline numbers rest on a single measurement or on an ambiguous description of the scaffold's role, so the value of the demonstration is currently undercut. The paper's contribution is best assessed as an experimental feasibility study rather than a fully validated mechanical-design claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (Composite fabrication) and Section 3 (Results, Fig. 2)] The scaffold's role is not resolved. Section 2 states only that ABS brackets are assembled as anchor points and that the 'tethered composite structure was cured'; no removal step is described. Section 3 then calls the scaffold the 'foundational framework or core for the fiber deposition' and says the scaffold material 'can be tailored to suit specific application requirements, including options such as metals, polymers, or fiber-reinforced composites,' which implies the scaffold remains in the final part. If the ABS scaffold remains embedded, the reported 260 g frame mass, 29.13 g arm mass, 31.2% fiber volume fraction, and the specific flexural strength 760 MPa/g/cm³ are not composite-only properties, and the comparison to metal/thermoplastic AM parts is not a clean material comparison. Please state unambiguously whether the scaffold is sacrificial and removed, and if so, describe the re
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 3(c) and Table 1] The central quantitative claims 'specific flexural strength of 760 MPa/g/cm³' and 'peak load of 1450 N' are presented without replicate count, error bars, or statistical uncertainty. The force-displacement curve appears to be from a single specimen. Likewise, the 'four to eight times' comparison in Table 1 is based on a single measured value set against references [21,42,43] without demonstrating that the test methods, specimen geometry, fiber volume fraction, or loading configuration are equivalent. For a robust claim, at least n=3–5 beam tests are needed, with mean±SD, and the comparison baselines should be described with their test conditions and normalized on the same specific-strength basis.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The statement that the 10% weight reduction 'contributed to an extended flight time of three minutes' is not supported by any flight-duration measurement. No hover or endurance test data are reported, and no controlled comparison is made in which the same motors, battery, and payload are flown with the 3DFiT frame versus a DJI F450 frame. A 30 g mass reduction does not by itself determine a 3-minute endurance gain; that depends on the full power train and flight profile. Please either provide measured flight-endurance data with the claimed comparison or revise the abstract and conclusion to state the weight reduction only.
  4. [Section 3, text vs. Fig. 4 caption] There is an internal inconsistency in manufacturing time. The body text says the fabricated drone frame has 'a manufacturing time of 120 minutes,' while the Figure 4 caption says 'manufacturing time of 30 minutes,' and the Figure 3 arm test also reports 30 minutes. Because manufacturing speed is a component of the '50–100 times improvement' claim in Table 1 and the introduction, this discrepancy must be resolved. Please specify which number is the full-frame fabrication time and provide a step-by-step timing breakdown.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] 'Face Centered Cubic' is spelled 'FFC' in the abstract; correct to 'FCC' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Figure 4 and surrounding text] The text references Figure 4(b) for the researcher standing on the frame, but the caption labels that image as (c); the assembled drone is (b) in the caption but is called (c) in the text. Please renumber or revise the in-text callouts.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 5] The drop test at 100 m and 150 m is described with impact energy values but no test repetitions, ground condition, or description of how the frame was attached to the Mavic 3. A sentence on repeatability and environmental conditions would improve the reader's ability to interpret the 'no visible damage' and 'critical energy threshold' statements.
  4. [Section 4] The units of specific flexural strength are given as 'MPa/gm/cm³' here and 'MPa/g/cm³' elsewhere; unify the notation and correct the 'gm' typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the drone-frame claims are measured experimental results with external benchmarks; the single self-citation to the prior 3DFiT method is not load-bearing for the frame-specific results.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental fabrication-and-characterization study rather than a derivation chain. Its central quantitative claims—260 g frame mass, 31.2% fiber volume fraction, 1450 N flexural load, 760 MPa/g/cm3 specific flexural strength, and drop-test survivability—are reported measurements on fabricated specimens, not quantities derived from a fitted model or from the cited prior work. The only self-citation to the authors' earlier paper [34] ('Previously, we successfully demonstrated the feasibility of 3DFiT...') is used to identify the method and to state that feasibility was previously shown; the current drone-frame results are independently measured and are not obtained by reduction to [34]. Comparisons to the DJI F450 frame and to literature values [21,42,43] are external benchmarks, and Table 1's rubric is a qualitative comparative assessment rather than a mathematical derivation. The most important weakness is experimental rather than circular: the manuscript never states that the 3D-printed ABS scaffold brackets are removed after curing. Section 2 says only that the scaffold brackets are assembled, fibers are deposited onto them, and the 'tethered composite structure was cured,' while Section 3 calls the scaffold 'the foundational framework or core for the fiber deposition.' If the ABS scaffold remains embedded, the reported 260 g mass, 31.2% fiber volume fraction, and composite-specific flexural strength would include scaffold mass/load contribution and would not be composite-only properties. That is a validity/omission concern, not a circularity concern: no claim is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 1, reflecting only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims are carried by a chain of untested assumptions: the FCC topology choice, the single-arm test extrapolation, the fate of the ABS scaffold, and the weight-to-endurance scaling. None of these is derived or benchmarked in the manuscript. The only explicit free parameter is the lattice volume fraction; the other numbers are physical measurements without reported uncertainty.

free parameters (1)
  • FCC lattice solid volume fraction = 8.75%
    Chosen by the authors as the design density for the drone frame; no optimization or parametric sweep is reported, and the lightweight and strength claims depend on this hand-selected value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FCC lattice provides superior load distribution for the drone arm compared with other topologies.
    The paper selects FCC based on qualitative statements in Section 1 and Figure 1(c), with no comparative mechanical tests or structural optimization for other unit cells. The entire weight-saving value proposition rests on this choice.
  • domain assumption Three-point flexural behavior of a single drone arm represents the whole frame's strength-to-weight performance.
    Only one lattice arm (155 x 22 x 22 mm, 29.13 g) is tested, yet the headline specific flexural strength (760 MPa/g/cm3) is attributed to the full frame in Table 1 and the conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper The ABS scaffold brackets either do not remain in the frame, or if they remain, they do not affect the reported mass and properties.
    No scaffold removal step is described in Section 2 or Figure 2. The frame is discussed as a composite structure, so this assumption is necessary for the 260 g mass and 31.2% fiber volume fraction to describe the composite alone.
  • ad hoc to paper A 30 g weight reduction (260 g vs 290 g) translates directly into three minutes of additional flight time.
    The abstract and Section 3 state the three-minute extension without showing hover-duration measurements or an endurance model, so the claim depends on an untested proportionality between frame mass and flight time.
  • domain assumption Fiber paths deposited through the chosen anchor nodes align with principal stress trajectories.
    Anchor placement is described as 'strategically determined' in Section 3, but no stress analysis, simulation, or fiber-angle measurement is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid Manufacturing of Lightweight Drone Frames Using Single-Tow Architected Composites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UB2AU6RU

@misc{pith2026250909024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid Manufacturing of Lightweight Drone Frames Using Single-Tow Architected Composites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UB2AU6RU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09024}
}
read the original abstract

The demand for lightweight and high-strength composite structures is rapidly growing in aerospace and robotics, particularly for optimized drone frames. However, conventional composite manufacturing methods struggle to achieve complex 3D architectures for weight savings and rely on assembling separate components, which introduce weak points at the joints. Additionally, maintaining continuous fiber reinforcement remains challenging, limiting structural efficiency. In this study, we demonstrate the lightweight Face Centered Cubic (FFC) lattice structured conceptualization of drone frames for weight reduction and complex topology fabrication through 3D Fiber Tethering (3DFiT) using continuous single tow fiber ensuring precise fiber alignment, eliminating weak points associated with traditional composite assembly. Mechanical testing demonstrates that the fabricated drone frame exhibits a high specific strength of around four to eight times the metal and thermoplastic, outperforming other conventional 3D printing methods. The drone frame weighs only 260 g, making it 10% lighter than the commercial DJI F450 frame, enhancing structural integrity and contributing to an extended flight time of three minutes, while flight testing confirms its stability and durability under operational conditions. The findings demonstrate the potential of single tow lattice truss-based drone frames, with 3DFiT serving as a scalable and efficient manufacturing method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09024 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. 3DFiT process for fabricating a single tow lattice-structured lightweight composite drone frame. (a) Drone structure designed using an FCC-inspired lattice architecture. (b) Scaffold design with anchor nodes for guiding the fiber tethering process. (c) Automated manufacturing using robotic fiber placement. (d) 3DFiT drone frame. The mechanical performance of the continuous carbon fiber-reinforced drone arm fabricate… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The structural frame of a UAV directly influences flight dynamics, payload capacity, and operational efficiency

    Introduction Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become essential in various applications, including defense, logistics, surveillance, and environmental monitoring, where structural efficiency, lightweight design, and rapid manufacturing are critical. The structural frame of a UAV directly influences flight dynamics, payload capacity, and operational eff...

  2. [2]

    Materials and Methods Materials The continuous carbon fibers utilized in the 3DFiT process are HS -CP-4000, 50K Hexcel fibers, sourced from ACP Composites. The epoxy system comprises a liquid epoxy resin derived from diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA), obtained from Fibre Glast, combined with a methyl tetrahydrophthalic anhydride (MTHPA)-based harden...

  3. [3]

    3DFiT fabrication of the frame systematically integrates scaffold design with anchor node placement, and automated fiber deposition

    Results and Discussions The 3DFiT process illustrated in Figure 2 represents the fabrication technique of a drone frame designed for destructive mechanical strength analysis, specifically for drop testing. 3DFiT fabrication of the frame systematically integrates scaffold design with anchor node placement, and automated fiber deposition. The drone frame to...

  4. [4]

    Conclusion In summary, this study demonstrates the fabrication of a lightweight, FCC lattice inspired optimized carbon fiber-reinforced drone frame using the 3DFiT technique. By leveraging the capabilities of the 3DFiT process, we achieve precise single tow fiber placement along 18 principal load-bearing paths, supported by strategically positioned spatia...

    2021

  5. [5]

    Bright, R

    J. Bright, R. Suryaprakash, S. Akash, A. Giridharan, Optimization of quadcopter frame using generative design and comparison with DJI F450 drone frame, IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 1012 (2021) 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1012/1/012019

    work page doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1012/1/012019 2021

  6. [6]

    Zahir, M

    H. Zahir, M. Fathi, A. Tharima, C. Harika, A. Sai Kumar, M. V Raghavendra Rao, Comparative Study on Effect of Material on structural Performance of a Quadcopter Drone with ‘X - Frame,’ J Phys Conf Ser 2837 (2024) 012099. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2837/1/012099

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2837/1/012099 2024

  7. [7]

    Sundararaj, K

    S. Sundararaj, K. Dharsan, J. Ganeshraman, D. Rajarajeswari, Structural and modal analysis of hybrid low altitude self -sustainable surveillance drone technology frame, Mater Today Proc 37 (2020) 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.397

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.397 2020

  8. [8]

    Arunkumar, D

    P. Arunkumar, D. Balaji, N. Radhika, L. Rajeshkumar, S. Mavinkere Rangappa, S. Siengchin, Effect of infill pattern on mechanical properties of 3D printed PLA -Zn composites for drone frame structures: A topology optimization integrated application study, Results in Engineering 25 (2025) 104107. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2025.104107

    arXiv 2025

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Muralidharan, V.G

    N. Muralidharan, V.G. Pratheep, A. Shanmugam, A. Hariram, P. Dinesh, B. Visnu, Structural analysis of mini drone developed using 3D printing technique, Mater Today Proc 46 (2021) 8748–8752. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.04.053

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Jayakumar, I.P

    S.S. Jayakumar, I.P. Subramaniam, B. Stanislaus Arputharaj, S.K. Solaiappan, P. Rajendran, I.E. Lee, S.K. Madasamy, R.K. Gnanasekaran, A. Karuppasamy, V. Raja, Design, control, aerodynamic performances, and structural integrity investigations of 20 compact ducted drone with co...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    H. Zhu, H. Nie, L. Zhang, X. Wei, M. Zhang, Design and assessment of octocopter drones with improved aerodynamic efficiency and performance, Aerosp Sci Technol 106 (2020) 106206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AST.2020.106206

    2020

  4. [13]

    ElFaham, A.M

    M.M. ElFaham, A.M. Mostafa, G.M. Nasr, Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) manufacturing materials: Synthesis, spectroscopic characterization and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), J Mol Struct 1201 (2020) 127211. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MOLSTRUC.2019.127211

    2020

  5. [14]

    Grodzki, A

    W. Grodzki, A. Łukaszewicz, Design and manufacture of umanned aerial vehicles (UAV) wing structure using composite materials, Materwiss Werksttech 46 (2015) 269–

    2015

  6. [16]

    Adamski, Use of construction materials in unmanned aerial vehicles, Journal of KONES Vol

    M. Adamski, Use of construction materials in unmanned aerial vehicles, Journal of KONES Vol. 23, No. 3 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5604/12314005.1216395

    2016

  7. [17]

    Maity, R

    R. Maity, R. Mishra, P. Kumar Pattnaik, A. Pandey, Selection of sustainable material for the construction of UAV aerodynamic wing using MCDM technique, Mater Today Proc (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2023.12.025

    2023 doi

  8. [18]

    Mihailescu, I

    R. Mihailescu, I. Simion, C.I. Enache, O.R. Chivu, D. Nitoi, Development of a Prototype Drone through Carbon Fiber Composite Structures and Additive Manufacturing Techniques, Macromol Symp 413 (2024) 2300202. https://doi.org/10.1002/MASY.202300202

    2024 doi

  9. [20]

    Basri, M.T.H

    E.I. Basri, M.T.H. Sultan, M. Faizal, A.A. Basri, M.F. Abas, M.S.A. Majid, J.S. Mandeep, K.A. Ahmad, Performance analysis of composite ply orientation in aeronautical application of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) NACA4415 wing, Journal of Materials Res earch and Technology 8 (2...

    2019 doi

  10. [21]

    Nunes, J.F

    J.P. Nunes, J.F. Silva, Sandwiched composites in aerospace engineering, Advanced Composite Materials for Aerospace Engineering (2016) 129 –174. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100037-3.00005-5

    2016 doi

  11. [22]

    S. Rana, R. Fangueiro, Advanced composites in aerospace engineering, Advanced Composite Materials for Aerospace Engineering (2016) 1 –15. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100037-3.00001-8. 21

    2016 doi

  12. [23]

    Turgut, Manufacturing and structural analysis of a lightweight sandwich composite UAV wing, (2007)

    T. Turgut, Manufacturing and structural analysis of a lightweight sandwich composite UAV wing, (2007). https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/17130 (accessed February 1, 2025)

    2007

  13. [24]

    Hairi, S.J.M.B.M

    S.M.F.B.S. Hairi, S.J.M.B.M. Saleh, A.H. Ariffin, Z. Bin Omar, A Review on Composite Aerostructure Development for UAV Application, (2023) 137 –157. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1583-5_9

    2023 doi

  14. [25]

    Harle, Durability and long -term performance of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites: A review, Structures 60 (2024) 105881

    S.M. Harle, Durability and long -term performance of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites: A review, Structures 60 (2024) 105881. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2024.105881

    2024

  15. [26]

    A. V. Azarov, F.K. Antonov, M. V. Golubev, A.R. Khaziev, S.A. Ushanov, Composite 3D printing for the small size unmanned aerial vehicle structure, Compos B Eng 169 (2019) 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.03.073

    2019 doi

  16. [27]

    Ibrahim, M.F

    Mohd.R. Ibrahim, M.F. Azman, A.H. Ariffin, M.N. Mansur, M.S. Mustapa, A.R. Irfan, Overview of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Parts Material in Recent Application, (2023) 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6282-0_11

    2023 doi

  17. [28]

    Liang, P.C

    Y.C. Liang, P.C. Chin, Y.P. Sun, M.R. Wang, Design and Manufacture of Composite Landing Gear for a Light Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Applied Sciences 2021, Vol. 11, Page 509 11 (2021) 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP11020509

    2021 doi

  18. [29]

    T. Khan, M. Ali, Z. Riaz, H. Butt, R.K. Abu Al -Rub, Y. Dong, R. Umer, Recent developments in improving the fracture toughness of 3D -printed fiber -reinforced polymer composites, Compos B Eng 283 (2024) 111622. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2024.111622

    2024

  19. [30]

    Z. Guo, Z. Hou, X. Tian, W. Zhu, C. Wang, M. Luo, A. V. Malakhov, A.N. Polilov, D. Zhi, H. Ding, H. Lan, 3D printing of curvilinear fiber reinforced variable stiffness composite structures: A review, Compos B Eng 291 (2025) 112039. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2024.112039

    2025

  20. [35]

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1080059- REG/dji_cp_nz_000012_flame_wheel_f450_with.html (accessed March 14, 2025)

    DJI Flame Wheel F450 with Naza -M V2, GPS, and CP.NZ.000012 B&H, (n.d.). https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1080059- REG/dji_cp_nz_000012_flame_wheel_f450_with.html (accessed March 14, 2025)

    2025

  21. [36]

    Khalid, K

    L.W. Khalid, K. Mermerdaş, D.K. Bzeni, D.J. Jawad, Determination of appropriate mix proportion of carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer composite for 3D printing technology, Journal of Building Engineering 100 (2025) 111751. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2024.111751

    2025

  22. [37]

    Aldhahri, D.A

    K.S. Aldhahri, D.A. Klosterman, Additively manufactured resin transfer molding (RTM) plastic tooling for producing composite T -joint structures, Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2024) 1 –19. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40964 -024-00750- 6/FIGURES/26

    2024 doi

  23. [38]

    Walbran, S

    W.A. Walbran, S. Bickerton, P.A. Kelly, Simulation and experimental validation of mould tooling forces in RTM and CRTM for nonplanar components, Polym Compos 36 (2015) 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/PC.22976

    2015 doi

  24. [39]

    Ullah Khan, M.M

    M.H. Ullah Khan, M.M. Islam, K. Deng, I.M. Khan, L. Liu, K. Fu, Additive fiber tethering for 3D architected continuous fiber composites, Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 192 (2025) 108763. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.108763

    2025

  25. [40]

    Zhang, K

    C. Zhang, K. Fu, Additively manufactured 3D short carbon fiber scaffold for thermoset composites, MRS Commun 14 (2024) 520 –526. https://doi.org/10.1557/S43579 -024- 00548-1/FIGURES/4

    2024 doi

  26. [41]

    https://www.amazon.com/YoungRC-4-Axis-Airframe-Quadcopter- Landing/dp/B0776WLHX7 (accessed March 14, 2025)

    Amazon.com: YoungRC F450 Drone Frame Kit 4 -Axis Airframe 450mm Quadcopter Frame Kit with Landing Skid Gear : Toys & Games, (n.d.). https://www.amazon.com/YoungRC-4-Axis-Airframe-Quadcopter- Landing/dp/B0776WLHX7 (accessed March 14, 2025)

    2025

  27. [42]

    Z. Quan, A. Wu, M. Keefe, X. Qin, J. Yu, J. Suhr, J.H. Byun, B.S. Kim, T.W. Chou, Additive manufacturing of multi-directional preforms for composites: opportunities and challenges, Materials Today 18 (2015) 503 –512. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATTOD.2015.05.001

    2015 doi

  28. [43]

    Deng, M.H.U

    K. Deng, M.H.U. Khan, S. Park, D.H. Sung, K. Fu, Additive manufacturing of continuous carbon fiber/epoxy composites with structured core-shell towpreg: Methods, characterization, and mechanics, Compos B Eng 291 (2025) 112001. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2024.112001

    2025

  29. [44]

    K. Deng, C. Zhang, K. (Kelvin) Fu, Additive manufacturing of continuously reinforced thermally curable thermoset composites with rapid interlayer curing, Compos B Eng 257 (2023) 110671. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2023.110671. 23

    2023

  30. [45]

    Valvez, P

    S. Valvez, P. Santos, J.M. Parente, M.P. Silva, P.N.B. Reis, 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced PLA composites: A short review, Procedia Structural Integrity 25 (2020) 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSTR.2020.04.056

    2020 doi

  31. [46]

    Green -to-Brown

    C. Zhang, B. Shi, J. He, L. Zhou, S. Park, S. Doshi, Y. Shang, K. Deng, M. Giordano, X. Qi, S. Cui, L. Liu, C. Ni, K.K. Fu, Carbon Additive Manufacturing with a Near - Replica “Green -to-Brown” Transformation, Advanced Materials 35 (2023) 2208230. https://doi.org/10.1002/ADMA....

    2023 doi

  32. [47]

    S.F. Khan, H. Zakaria, Y.L. Chong, M.A.M. Saad, K. Basaruddin, Effect of infill on tensile and flexural strength of 3D printed PLA parts, IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 429 (2018) 012101. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/429/1/012101

    2018 doi

  33. [48]

    Rahman Rashid, J

    R.A. Rahman Rashid, J. Mallavarapu, S. Palanisamy, S.H. Masood, A comparative study of flexural properties of additively manufactured aluminium lattice structures, Mater Today Proc 4 (2017) 8597–8604. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2017.07.207

    2017 doi

  34. [49]

    Matsuzaki, M

    R. Matsuzaki, M. Ueda, M. Namiki, T.K. Jeong, H. Asahara, K. Horiguchi, T. Nakamura, A. Todoroki, Y. Hirano, Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-nozzle impregnation, Sci Rep 6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/SREP23058

    2016 doi

  35. [278]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/MAWE.201500351

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.