Search results

Polyurethane (PUR) foam parts are traditionally manufactured using metallic molds, an unsuitable approach for prototyping purposes. Thus, rapid tooling of disposable molds using fused filament fabrication (FFF) with polylactic acid (PLA) and glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate (PETG) is proposed as an economical, simpler and faster solution compared to traditional metallic molds or three-dimensional (3D) printing with other difficult-to-print thermoplastics, which are prone to shrinkage and delamination (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polypropilene-PP) or high-cost due to both material and printing equipment expenses (PEEK, polyamides or polycarbonate-PC). The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the ease of release of PUR foam on these materials in combination with release agents to facilitate the mulding/demoulding process.

PETG, PLA and hardenable polylactic acid (PLA 3D870) have been evaluated as mold materials in combination with aqueous and solvent-based release agents within a full design of experiments by three consecutive molding/demolding cycles.

PLA 3D870 has shown the best demoldability. A mold expressly designed to manufacture a foam cushion has been printed and the prototyping has been successfully achieved. The demolding of the part has been easier using a solvent-based release agent, meanwhile the quality has been better when using a water-based one.

The combination of PLA 3D870 and FFF, along with solvent-free water-based release agents, presents a compelling low-cost and eco-friendly alternative to traditional metallic molds and other 3D printing thermoplastics. This innovative approach serves as a viable option for rapid tooling in PUR foam molding.

The proliferation of industry platforms has disrupted several industries. Firms adopting a platform business model have experienced a substantial expansion in size and scale, positioning themselves as the foremost valuable entities in market capitalization. Over the past two decades, there has been a substantial expansion in the body of literature dedicated to platforms, and different streams of research have emerged. Despite considerable efforts and the significant progress made in recent years toward a comprehensive understanding of industry platforms, there is still room for further harnessing the field’s diversity. As a result, the aim of this article is to examine the field’s structure, identify research concerns and provide suggestions for future research, thereby enhancing the overall understanding of industry platforms.

We conducted a thorough examination of 458 articles on the topic using bibliometric methods and systematic review techniques.

Through co-citation analysis, we identified five distinct clusters rooted in various bodies of literature: two-sided markets, industry platforms, digital platforms, innovation platforms and two-sided networks. Furthermore, the examination of these five clusters has revealed three key areas that demand further consideration: (1) terminologies, (2) classifications and (3) perspectives.

While previous reviews have provided valuable insights into the topic of industry platforms, none have explored the structure of the field so far. Consequently, as a first step toward advancing the field, we uncover the structure of the literature, identifying three major areas of concern. By addressing these concerns, our goal is to converge different clusters, thereby harnessing the diversity in the field and enhancing the overall understanding of industry platforms.