Page 158 - IJB-9-3
P. 158

International Journal of Bioprinting                                LPBF of AKM/PEEK biological composite



            Table 2. Thermal performance parameters tested by the DSC
                                ω (AKM = 0 wt%)     ω(AKM = 5 wt%)     ω(AKM = 10 wt%)     ω(AKM = 15 wt%)
             T m  (°C)           339.55             340.17              339.37              339.67
              peak
             ∆H  (J/g)            53.60              52.33               50.40              46.35
               m
             S  (°C)              20.61              20.74               19.54              21.90
             w
                                (300.67–321.28)     (300.84–321.58)     (301.65–321.19)    (299.59–321.49)
             T c  (°C)           292.79             291.69              291.30              289.49
              peak
             ∆H  (J/g)           −45.97             −44.21              −42.28              −40.22
               c
























                         Figure 4. Tensile strength and Young’s modulus of pure PEEK samples printed at various laser scanning speeds.

            decrease with the increase of AKM content. Because   mm/s, the tensile strength decreased to 82.87 ± 3.16 MPa.
            the melting point of AKM (1450°C) is far higher than   The tensile modulus remained nearly consistent when the
            the highest temperature that can be achieved during the   speed increased to 2000 mm/s but decreased to 3334.03 ±
            HT-LPBF process, the AKM powder did not melt during   97.59 MPa when the speed increased to 2400 mm/s. The
            the experiment. Therefore, in the composite powder, the   changes in tensile strength and modulus are directly
            absorbed heat is reduced since the PEEK content decreases,   related to the laser energy density. Obvious smoke could
            thus resulting in the decrease of the melting enthalpy and   be observed during processing when the laser scanning
            crystallization  enthalpy.  This indicates  that under  the   speed was set to 1600 mm/s and 1800 mm/s (i.e., high
            same power bed temperature and laser energy density, the   laser energy density), which suggests the degradation of
            composite powder with higher AKM content will absorb   PEEK and explains lower strength tensile under lower
            more heat after completely melting, which may lead to a   laser scanning speed. While the speed increased from
            higher surface temperature during the sintering process   2000 to 2400 mm/s, the reduced laser energy density
            and further decomposition of PEEK.                 was not sufficient to produce enough melting depth and
                                                               resulted in a weak interlayer adhesion. At a laser scanning
            3.2. Mechanical properties of AKM/PEEK composites   speed of 2000 mm/s, the fabricated sample possesses the
            fabricated by optimized HT-LPBF process            highest tensile strength, and the tiny error bar proves the
            The optimization of the HT-LPBF process of pure PEEK   performance stability. Therefore, a laser scanning speed
            was performed by adjusting the laser  scanning speed.   of 2000 mm/s was applied to the processing of the AKM/
            Figure 4 shows the tensile strength and tensile modulus of   PEEK composites as an optimal parameter.
            pure PEEK samples fabricated by different laser scanning
            speeds. When the laser scanning speed increased from   Figure 5a shows the stress–strain curves of samples
            1600 to 2000 mm/s, the tensile strength of the sample first   fabricated by pure PEEK and composites with different
            experienced an increase from 88.37 ± 9.50 to 98.74 ± 0.49   AKM ratios under optimized processing parameters. All the
            MPa. When the speed further increased from 2000 to 2400   samples experienced an initial linear elastic deformation,


            Volume 9 Issue 3 (2023)                        150                          https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.699
   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163