Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology is increasingly applied in automotive, aerospace and medical applications. FFF is one of the most widely used additive manufacturing techniques to manufacture thermoplastics or their composites. FFF enables improvement in both cycle time and total cost of product development. Such improvements are achieved through the quick manufacture of functional prototypes enable real-world product development and testing. While the benefits of FFF are undeniable, its use in demanding applications is hindered by materials properties. The used commodity and standard polymers actually exhibit low to medium thermal and mechanical properties. To overcome this limitation, the aerospace industry looks for high-performance thermoplastics to obtain plastic parts strong enough to be used as a replacement for metal. Recent developments in FFF equipment now enable engineering polymers, such as Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and Polyether imide (PEI), to be utilized for parts with increased mechanical and thermal properties. Thus, this article reviews and discusses the properties and the printing parameters of PEEK and PEI produced by FFF.
AhnSMonteroMOdellD, et al.Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J2002; 8: 248–257.
2.
MartínezJDiéguezJLAresE, et al.Comparative between FEM models for FDM parts and their approach to a real mechanical behaviour. In: The Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference (MESIC). Procedia Eng2013; 63: 878–884.
3.
WuWGengPLiG, et al.Influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the mechanical properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a comparative mechanical study between PEEK and ABS. Materials2015; 8: 5834–5846.
4.
VanaeiHRShirinbayanMCostaSF, et al.Experimental study of PLA thermal behavior during fused filament fabrication. J Appl Polym Sci2021; 138: 49747.
5.
CoeyJMD.Permanent magnets: plugging the gap. Scr Mater2012; 67: 524–529.
6.
El MagriAEl MabroukKVaudreuilS, et al.Mechanical properties of CF-reinforced PLA parts manufactured by fused deposition modeling. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. Epub ahead of print 12 May 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0892705719847244.
7.
PolzinCSpathSSeitzH. Characterization and evaluation of a PMMA-based 3D printing process. Rapid Prototyp J2013; 19: 37–43.
8.
ParandoushPLinD. A review on additive manufacturing of polymer-fiber composites. Compos Struct2017; 182: 36–53.
9.
MagalhãesLCVolpatoNLuersenMA. Evaluation of stiffness and strength in fused deposition sandwich specimens. J Brazilian Soc Mech Sci Eng2014; 36: 449–459.
10.
WengZWangJSenthilT, et al.Mechanical and thermal properties of ABS/montmorillonite nanocomposites for fused deposition modeling 3D printing. Mater Des2016; 102: 276–283.
11.
VanaeiSPariziMSVanaeiS, et al.An overview on materials and techniques in 3d bioprinting toward biomedical application. Eng Regen2021; 2: 1–18.
12.
De PieriAByerleyAMMusumeciCR, et al.Electrospinning and 3D bioprinting for intervertebral disc tissue engineering. JOR Spine2020; 3: 1–11.
13.
El MagriAEl MabroukKVaudreuilS, et al.Optimization of printing parameters for improvement of mechanical and thermal performances of 3D printed poly(ether ether ketone) parts. J Appl Polym Sci2020; 137: 1–14.
14.
ZiemianCSharmaMZiemiS.Anisotropic mechanical properties of abs parts fabricated by fused deposition modelling. In: IntechOpen and GokcekMurat (eds) Mechanical Engineering. 2012, pp. 159–180.
15.
DurgunIErtanR. Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties and production cost. Rapid Prototyp J2014; 20: 228–235.
16.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts. Mater Des2010; 31: 287–295.
17.
SoodAKOhdarRKMahapatraSS. Experimental investigation and empirical modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement. J Adv Res2012; 3: 81–90.
18.
LeeBHAbdullahJKhanZA. Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for production of flexible ABS object. J Mater Process Technol2005; 169: 54–61.
19.
RahmanKMLetcherTReeseR. Mechanical properties of additively manufactured PEEK components using fused filament fabrication. In: ASME 2015 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Volume 2A: Advanced Manufacturing. Houston, Texas, USA, November, 2015, paper no: IMECE2015–52209, V02AT02A009, pp. 1–11.
20.
LetcherTRankouhiBJavadpourS. Experimental study of mechanical properties of additively manufactured ABS plastic as a function of layer parameters. In: ASME 2015 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Volume 2A: Advanced Manufacturing. Houston, Texas, USA, November 13–19, 2015, paper no. IMECE2015–52634, V02AT02A018, pp. 1–8.
21.
ZiemianCWZiemianRDHaileKV. Characterization of stiffness degradation caused by fatigue damage of additive manufactured parts. Mater Des2016; 109: 209–218.
22.
LetcherTWaytashekM. Material property testing of 3D-printed specimen in PLA on an entry-level 3D printer. In: ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Volume 2A: Advanced Manufacturing. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. November 14–20, 2014, paper no. IMECE2014–39379, V02AT02A014, pp. 1–8.
23.
TürkDABrenniFZoggM, et al.Mechanical characterization of 3D printed polymers for fiber reinforced polymers processing. Mater Des2017; 118: 256–265.
24.
GargABhattacharyaA. An insight to the failure of FDM parts under tensile loading: finite element analysis and experimental study. Int J Mech Sci2017; 120: 225–236.
25.
GebisaAWLemuHG. Investigating effects of Fused-deposition modeling (FDM) processing parameters on flexural properties of ULTEM 9085 using designed experiment. Materials2018; 11: 1–23.
26.
El MagriAEl MabroukKVaudreuilS, et al.Experimental investigation and optimization of printing parameters of 3D printed polyphenylene sulfide through response surface methodology. J Appl Polym Sci2020; 138: 1–13.
27.
RankouhiBJavadpourSDelfanianF, et al.Failure analysis and mechanical characterization of 3D printed ABS with respect to layer thickness and orientation. J Fail Anal Prev2016; 16: 467–481.
28.
VanaeiHRShirinbayanMVanaeiS, et al.Multi-scale damage analysis and fatigue behavior of PLA manufactured by fused deposition modeling (FDM). Rapid Prototyp J2021; 27: 371–378.
29.
AnithaRArunachalamSRadhakrishnanP. Critical parameters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol2001; 118: 385–388.
30.
WangPZouBXiaoH, et al.Effects of printing parameters of fused deposition modeling on mechanical properties, surface quality, and microstructure of PEEK. J Mater Process Technol2019; 271: 62–74.
31.
Gomez-GrasGJerez-MesaRTravieso-RodriguezJA, et al.Fatigue performance of fused filament fabrication PLA specimens. Mater Des2018; 140: 278–285.
32.
EL MagriAVaudreuilSEL MabroukK, et al.Printing temperature effects on the structural and mechanical performances of 3D printed Poly–(phenylene sulfide) material. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. The International Conference on Advanced Materials, Microscopy and Energy (ICAMME’19), Meknes, Morocco, 17–19 April, 2019, pp. 1–6.
33.
NingFCongWQiuJ, et al.Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling. Compos Mater2015; 80: 369–378.
34.
LayMThajudinNLNHamidZAA, et al.Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of PLA, ABS and nylon 6 fabricated using fused deposition modeling and injection molding. Compos B Eng2019; 176: 1–8.
35.
PandaJNBijweJPandeyRK. Comparative potential assessment of solid lubricants on the performance of poly aryl ether ketone (PAEK) composites. Wear2017; 384–385: 192–202.
36.
GiraudIFranceschiSPerezE, et al.Influence of new thermoplastic sizing agents on the mechanical behavior of poly(ether ketone ketone)/carbon fiber composites. J Appl Polym Sci2015; 132: 1–5.
37.
ChenCZhangCLiuC, et al.Rate-dependent tensile failure behavior of short fiber reinforced PEEK. Compos B Eng2018; 136: 187–196.
38.
VeazeyDHsuTGomezED. Next generation high-performance carbon fiber thermoplastic composites based on polyaryletherketones. J Appl Polym Sci2017; 134: 1–7.
39.
RashevaZZhangGBurkhartT. A correlation between the tribological and mechanical properties of short carbon fibers reinforced PEEK materials with different fiber orientations. Tribol Int2010; 43: 1430–1437.
40.
PatelPHullTRLyonRE, et al.Investigation of the thermal decomposition and flammability of PEEK and its carbon and glass-fibre composites. Polym Degrad Stab2011; 96: 12–22.
41.
KarsliNGDemirkolSYilmazT. Thermal aging and reinforcement type effects on the tribological, thermal, thermomechanical, physical and morphological properties of poly(ether ether ketone) composites. Compos B Eng2016; 88: 253–263.
42.
De LeonACChenQPalaganasNB, et al.High performance polymer nanocomposites for additive manufacturing applications. React Funct Polym2016; 103: 141–155.
43.
RinaldiMGhidiniTCecchiniF, et al.Additive layer manufacturing of poly (ether ether ketone) via FDM. Compos Part B Eng2018; 145: 162–172.
44.
Quiroga CortesLCausséNDantrasE, et al.Morphology and dynamical mechanical properties of poly ether ketone ketone (PEKK) with meta phenyl links. J Appl Polym Sci2016; 133: 1–10.
45.
ChangIYLeesJK.Recent development in thermoplastic composites: a review of matrix systems and processing methods. J Thermoplast Compos Mater1988; 1: 277–296.
46.
ShibataMFangZYosomiyaR, Miscibility and crystallization behavior of poly(ether ether ketone)/poly(ether imide) blends. Appl Polym Sci2001; 80: 769–775.
47.
CrevecoeurGGroeninckxG.Binary blends of poly(ether ether ketone) and poly(ether imide). Miscibility, crystallization behavior, and semicrystalline morphology. Macromolecules1991; 24: 1190–1195.
48.
YaoFZhengJQiM, et al.The thermal decomposition kinetics of poly(ether-ether-ketone) (PEEK) and its carbon fiber composite. Thermochim Acta1991; 183: 91–97.
49.
BrugelEG.Copolyetherketones. European patent application EP0225144 A2. US, 1986.
AbrahamRJHaworthIS. Molecular modelling of poly(aryl ether ketones): 2. Chain packing in crystalline PEK and PEEK. Polymer1991; 32: 121–126.
52.
AttwoodTEDawsonPCFreemanJL, et al.Synthesis and properties of polyaryletherketones. Polymer1981; 22: 1096–1103.
53.
PerngLHTsaiCJLingYC. Mechanism and kinetic modelling of PEEK pyrolysis by TG/MS. Polymer1999; 40: 7321–7329.
54.
MurariABarzonA. Comparison of new PEEK® seals with traditional helicoflex for ultra high vacuum applications. Vacuum2003; 72: 327–334.
55.
KuoMCTsaiCMHuangJC, et al.PEEK composites reinforced by nano-sized SiO2 and A12O3 particulates. Mater Chem Phys2005; 90: 185–195.
56.
PerngLH. Thermal degradation mechanism of poly(ether imide) by stepwise Py-GC/MS. J Appl Polym Sci2001; 79: 1151–1161.
57.
HayJNKemmishDJ. Thermal decomposition of poly(aryl ether ketones). Polymer1987; 28: 2047–2051.
58.
TsaiCJPerngLHLingYC. A study of thermal degradation of poly(aryl-etherether-ketone) using stepwise pyrolysis/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom1997; 11: 1987–1995.
59.
ZhangH. Fire-safe polymers and polymer composites. Amhurst, MA: Polymer Science and Engineering, University of Massachusetts, September2004.
60.
DayMCooneyJDWilesDM. The thermal degradation of poly(aryl-ether-ether-ketone) (peek) as monitored by pyrolysis-GC/MS and TG/MS. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis1990; 18: 163–173.
61.
XuZKShenLQYangQ, et al.Ultrafiltration hollow fiber membranes from poly(ether imide): preparation, morphologies and properties. J Membr Sci2003; 223: 105–118.
62.
HarrisJERobesonLM.Miscible blends of poly(aryl ether ketone)s and polyetherimides. J Appl Polym Sci1988; 35: 1877–1891.
DominguezSDerailCLeonardiF, et al.Study of the thermal properties of miscible blends between poly(ether ketone ketone) (Pekk) and polyimide. Eur Polym J2014; 62: 179–185.
65.
KongXTengFTangH, et al.Miscibility and crystallization behaviour of poly(ether ether ketone)/polyimide blends. Polymer1996; 37: 1751–1755.
66.
Díez-PascualAMNaffakhMGómezMA, et al.The influence of a compatibilizer on the thermal and dynamical properties of PEEK/carbon nanotube composites. Nanotechnology2009; 20: 315707.
67.
NguyenHXIshidaH, Poly(aryl-ether-ether-ketone) and its advanced composites: a review. Polym Compos1987; 8: 57–73.
68.
RamaniRAlamS. Composition optimization of PEEK/PEI blend using model-free kinetics analysis. Thermochim Acta2010; 511: 179–188.
69.
IvanovDAJonasAM.Vitrification/devitrification phenomena during isothermal and non-isothermal crystallization of poly(aryl ether ether ketone) (PEEK) and PEEK/poly(ether imide) blends. J Polym Sci Part B Polym Phys1998; 36: 919–930.
70.
HsiaoBSSauerBB. Glass transition, crystallization, and morphology relationships in miscible poly(aryl ether ketones) and poly(ether imide) blends. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys1993; 31: 901–915.
71.
SolomonIJSevvelPGunasekaranJ. A review on the various processing parameters in FDM. Mater Today Proc2020; 37: 509–514.
72.
ChristiyanKGJChandrasekharUVenkateswarluK. A study on the influence of process parameters on the mechanical properties of 3D printed ABS composite. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2016; 114: 012109.
73.
XiaoyongSLiangchengCHonglinM, et al.Experimental analysis of high temperature PEEK materials on 3D printing test. In: 9th International conference on measuring technology and mechatronics automation (ICMTMA), Changsha, 14–15 January 2017, pp. 13–16.
74.
YangCTianXLiD, et al.Influence of thermal processing conditions in 3D printing on the crystallinity and mechanical properties of PEEK material. J Mater Process Technol2017; 248: 1–7.
75.
CicalaGLatteriADel CurtoB, et al.Engineering thermoplastics for additive manufacturing: a critical perspective with experimental evidence to support functional applications. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater2017; 15: 10–18.
76.
VaeziMYangS. Extrusion-based additive manufacturing of PEEK for biomedical applications. Virtual Phys Prototyp2015; 10: 1–13.
77.
ArifMFKumarSVaradarajanKM, et al.Performance of biocompatible PEEK processed by fused deposition additive manufacturing. Mater Des2018; 146: 249–259.
78.
DaviesRShyngY-TWangY, et al.Extrusion deposition of carbon nanotubes (CNT)/Poly ether ether ketone (PEEK). In 20th International Conference on Composite Materials, Copenhagen, 19–24 July 2015.
79.
BerrettaSDaviesRShyngYT, et al.Fused Deposition Modelling of high temperature polymers: Exploring CNT PEEK composites. Polym Test2017; 63: 251–262.
80.
DingSZouBWangP, et al.Effects of nozzle temperature and building orientation on mechanical properties and microstructure of PEEK and PEI printed by 3D-FDM. Polym Test2019; 78: 1–26.
81.
JiangSLiaoGXuD, et al.Mechanical properties analysis of polyetherimide parts fabricated by fused deposition modeling. High Perform Polym2018; 31: 97–106.
82.
Forés-GarrigaAPérezMAGómez-GrasG, et al.Role of infill parameters on the mechanical performance and weight reduction of PEI Ultem processed by FFF. Mater Des2020; 193: 1–16.
83.
FischerMSchöppnerV. Fatigue Behavior of FDM Parts Manufactured with Ultem 9085. JOM2017; 69: 563–568.
84.
ZaldivarRJWitkinDBMcLouthT, et al.Influence of processing and orientation print effects on the mechanical and thermal behavior of 3D-Printed ULTEM ® 9085 Material. Addit Manuf2017; 31: 71–80.
85.
BybergKIGebisaAWLemuHG. Mechanical properties of ULTEM 9085 material processed by fused deposition modeling. Polym Test2018; 72: 335–347.
86.
VanaeiHShirinbayanMDeligantM, et al.Influence of process parameters on thermal and mechanical properties of polylactic acid fabricated by fused filament fabrication. Polym Eng Sci2020; 60: 1822–1831.
87.
StepashkinAAChukovDISenatovFS, et al.3D-printed PEEK-carbon fiber (CF) composites: structure and thermal properties. Compos Sci Technol2018; 164: 319–326.
88.
BasgulCYuTMacDonaldDW, et al.Does annealing improve the interlayer adhesion and structural integrity of FFF 3D printed PEEK lumbar spinal cages?J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 102: 1–9.
89.
BagsikASchöppnerVKlempE. FDM part quality manufactured with ultem* 9085. In: 14th international scientific conference on polymeric materials. 2010; 15: 307–315.
90.
ZhangJPanwarABelloD, et al.The effects of recycling on the properties of carbon nanotube-filled polypropylene composites and worker exposures. Environ Sci Nano2016; 3: 409–417.
91.
ShinMSeoJKimS, et al.Rheological Investigations of PC/MWNT composites. In: 18th International Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM), Jeju Island, S. Korea, 21-26 August 2011.
92.
ValentanBKadivnikŽBrajlihT, et al.Processing poly(ether etherketone) on a 3D printer for thermoplastic modelling. Mater Tehnol2013; 47: 715–721.
93.
WuWZGengPZhaoJ, et al.Manufacture and thermal deformation analysis of semicrystalline polymer polyether ether ketone by 3D printing. Mater Res Innov2014; 18: S5-12–S5-16.
94.
HuBDuanXXingZ, et al.Improved design of fused deposition modeling equipment for 3D printing of high-performance PEEK parts. Mech Mater2019; 137: 1–13.
95.
ZhaoYZhaoKLiY, et al.Mechanical characterization of biocompatible PEEK by FDM. J Manuf Process2020; 56: 28–42.
96.
VanaeiHRDeligantMShirinbayanM, et al.A comparative in-process monitoring of temperature profile in fused filament fabrication. Polym Eng Sci2020; 61: 68–76.
97.
VanaeiHRRaissiKDeligantM, et al.Toward the understanding of temperature effect on bonding strength, dimensions and geometry of 3D-printed parts. J Mater Sci. 2020; 55: 14677–14689.
98.
GengPZhaoJWuW, et al.Effects of extrusion speed and printing speed on the 3D printing stability of extruded PEEK filament. J Manuf Process. 2019; 37: 266–273.
99.
AbeykoonCSri-AmphornPFernandoA. Optimization of fused deposition modeling parameters for improved PLA and ABS 3D printed structures. Int J Light Mater Manuf2020; 3: 284–297.
100.
ZhongWLiFZhangZ, et al.Short fiber reinforced composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater Sci Eng A2001; 31: 125–130.
101.
CarneiroOSSilvaAFGomesR. Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene. Mater Des2015; 83: 768–776.
102.
TekinalpHLKuncVVelez-GarciaGM, et al.Highly oriented carbon fiber-polymer composites via additive manufacturing. Compos Sci Technol2014; 105: 144–150.
103.
ThiruchitrambalamMBubesh KumarDShanmugamD, et al.A review on PEEK composites – Manufacturing methods, properties and applications. Mater Today Proc2020; 33: 1085–1092.
104.
BettiniPAlittaGSalaG, et al.Fused deposition technique for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic. J Mater Eng Perform2017; 26: 843–848.
105.
NamikiMUedaMTodorokiA, et al.3D printing of continuous fiber reinforced plastic. In: SAMPE Seattle 2014 International Conference and Exhibition (International SAMPE Technical Conference). Soc. for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering, Seattle, United States, 2–5 June 2014.
106.
TianXLiuTYangC, et al.Interface and performance of 3D printed continuous carbon fiber reinforced PLA composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf2016; 88: 198–205.
107.
YangCTianXLiuT, et al.3D printing for continuous fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites: Mechanism and performance. Rapid Prototyp J2017; 23: 209–215.
108.
MelenkaGWCheungBKOSchofieldJS, et al.Evaluation and prediction of the tensile properties of continuous fiber-reinforced 3D printed structures. Compos Struct2016; 153: 866–875.
109.
MatsuzakiRUedaMNamikiM, et al.Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-nozzle impregnation. Sci Rep2016; 6: 1–7.
110.
LeGrandDG.Annealing. In: Encyclopedia of polymer science and technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011, pp. 1–13.
111.
JamshidianMTehranyEAImranM, et al.Poly-lactic acid: production, applications, nanocomposites, and release studies. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf2010; 9: 552–571.
112.
FitzharrisERWattIRosenDW, et al.Interlayer bonding improvement of material extrusion parts with polyphenylene sulfide using the Taguchi method. Addit Manuf2018; 24: 287–297.
113.
SinmazcelikTYilmazT. Thermal aging effects on mechanical and tribological performance of PEEK and shortfiber reinforced PEEK composites. Mater Des2007; 28: 641–648.
114.
PraterTWerkheiserNLedbetterF, et al.3D printing in zero-G technology demonstration mission: complete experimental results and summary of related material modeling efforts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 101: 391–417.
