Page 77 - MSAM-2-3
P. 77

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing                         Additive manufacturing of SiC composite




                         A                       B                       C







                         D                       E                       F








                        G                        H                       I









            Figure 24. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) scanning results of carbon fiber/silicon carbide (polylactic
            acid) composite final product. (A–F) SEM scanning. (G–I) EDS scanning: (H) C element distribution and (I) Si element distribution.

            a shorter ILD (a very short ILD affects the impregnation   A
            of the ceramic precursor), which enhances the proportion
            of the reinforcing phase and reduces the porosity, on the
            one hand, and introduces more pyrolyzed carbon, which
            causes both positive and negative effects, on the other
            hand. The combination of the two effects results in C /SiC
                                                      f
            (PETG) composites with a shorter ILD that has an overall
            performance inferior to that of C /SiC (PLA) composites
                                       f
            with a longer ILD.                                 B                       C
              Therefore, this study proposes to optimize the nozzle
            aperture  of  the  FFF  additive  equipment  by  replacing
            0.8 mm aperture nozzle with 1.0 mm nozzle. Two sets of
            complementary experiments of C /SiC (PETG) composites
                                      f
            utilized PETG-based prepreg with ILDs of 1.1 and 1.3 mm,
            respectively. A  comparison of the specimens formed
            with 0.8  mm nozzle aperture and the supplementary
            experimental specimens formed with 1.0  mm nozzle is
            shown in Figure 25, where ILD-1.1 and ILD-1.3 are formed
            with 1.0 mm nozzle, and ILD-1.0, ILD-1.2, and ILD-1.4   Figure  25. Photos of carbon fiber/polyethylene terephthalate glycol
            are formed with 0.8 mm nozzle. It can be seen that the   (C /PETG) green part samples. (A) Infill line distance (ILD)-1.0 to
                                                                f
            specimens in Figure 25C were more densely filled than the   ILD-1.4 from the left to right. (B) 0.8-C /PETG with an ILD of 1.2 mm.
                                                                                         f
                                                               (C) 1.0-C /PETG with an ILD of 1.0 mm.
            specimen in Figure 25B, although a larger ILD was used.   f
            This is due to the increased nozzle aperture and thicker
            filling line, which indirectly increased the filling density.  0.8  mm aperture nozzles is shown in  Figure  26, where
                                                               the group using 0.8 mm aperture nozzles is referred to as
              A comparison of the results of the three-point bending   0.8-C /SiC (PETG) and 0.8-C /SiC (PLA), and the group
                                                                                       f
                                                                   f
            and fracture toughness tests of the C /SiC (PETG)   using a 1.0 mm nozzle aperture is referred to as 1.0-C /SiC
                                                                                                         f
                                               f
            specimens obtained from this experimental preparation   (PETG). The test results demonstrated that increasing the
            and the C /SiC (PETG) and C /SiC (PLA) specimens using   nozzle aperture diameter effectively improved the bending
                    f
                                   f
            Volume 2 Issue 3 (2023)                         16                      https://doi.org/10.36922/msam.1604
   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82