2020
DOI: 10.1002/app.50243
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of processing conditions and sizing on the thermomechanical and morphological properties of polypropylene/carbon fiber composites fabricated by material extrusion additive manufacturing

Abstract: For the 3D printed composites, fiber alignment is affected by the direction of melt‐flow during extrusion of filaments and subsequently through the printing nozzle. The resulting fibers orientation and the fiber‐matrix compatibility have a direct correlation with mechanical properties. This study investigates the impact of processing conditions on the state of the carbon fiber types and their orientation on the mechanical properties of 3D‐printed composites. Short and long carbon fibers were used as starting r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
19
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
3
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The CCF layers break within a narrow window around the location of the maximum stress, indicating some strength variation over the length of the CCF and potentially undulation-induced load variation between layers highlighted in Figure 6 a (red box), and the reasoning is that already discussed in Figure 5 . In Figure 6 b, the CT scan of both primary and secondary fractures shows uneven failure, which is an attribute of MEX specimens similarly reported by authors Savandaiah et al [ 3 ] and Spoerk et al [ 5 ]. Voids between each layer are inherent to MEX due to layered processing and result in poor load transfer between layers, causing jagged teeth fractured appearance [ 4 , 17 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The CCF layers break within a narrow window around the location of the maximum stress, indicating some strength variation over the length of the CCF and potentially undulation-induced load variation between layers highlighted in Figure 6 a (red box), and the reasoning is that already discussed in Figure 5 . In Figure 6 b, the CT scan of both primary and secondary fractures shows uneven failure, which is an attribute of MEX specimens similarly reported by authors Savandaiah et al [ 3 ] and Spoerk et al [ 5 ]. Voids between each layer are inherent to MEX due to layered processing and result in poor load transfer between layers, causing jagged teeth fractured appearance [ 4 , 17 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The behaviour of materials extrusion (MEX) additive manufacturing of short-fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composites had been well studied as processing effects on thermomechanical and morphological properties [ 1 , 2 ]. Several researchers have investigated the influence of fibre length distribution [ 3 , 4 ], process-induced anisotropy [ 5 ] and thermal material [ 6 ] properties on the functional performance [ 7 ] of the parts produced via MEX composite additive manufacturing. The key aspect for the adoption of composite MEX is the light-weight potential of parts and assemblies by functional optimisation of the end-user application [ 8 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Length distribution analyses were performed with proprietary image processing software, Image-Pro plus and FASEP 3E, supplied by XYZ High Precision, Germany. The sample preparation and measurements are based on the procedure detailed in the previously published work (Unterweger et al, 2020;Savandaiah et al, 2021aSavandaiah et al, , 2021b.…”
Section: Fibre Length Distribution Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, during the deposition process, voids may appear, leading to a higher porosity and consequently, affecting the mechanical properties. This effect depends on the materials used, especially in composite materials [ 43 ]. Therefore, both the dimensional deviation and the voids arising lead to differences between the simulated and the experimental mechanical results.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%